Experiences from Participatory Integrated Watershed M

Working with Communities on Integrated Natural Resources Management Edited by Zenebe Admassu Kindu Mekonnen Yohannes Gojjam

¾›=ƒ Äå Á ¾Ó w `“ U ` U ` ›=’>e+ ƒ ¿ƒ Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research

Working with Communities on Integrated Natural Resources Management

Copy editing: Abebe Kirub

© EIAR, 2008 Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research P.O. Box 2003 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Fax: 251-116461294 Tel: 251-116462633 http://www.eiar.gov.et

ISBN: 978-99944-53-23-8

Contents Preface Opening address

i iii

African Highlands Initiative Project in Galessa Kindu Mekonnen and Zenebe Admassu

1

Participatory integrated watershed management: lessons from the central highlands of Ethiopia Zenebe Admassu, Kindu Mekonnen, Getachew Alemu, Yohannes Gojjam, Birhanu Bekele, Demeke Nigussie, Laura German, Tilahun Amede and Chris Opondo

9

Watershed-based soil and water conservation experiences in Ethiopian highlands Zenebe Admassu, Amare Ghizaw, Getachew Alemu, Kindu Mekonnen, Mesfin Tsegaye, Tilahun Amede and Laura German

27

Participatory tree nursery management and tree planting Berhane Kidane, Mehari Alebachew, Kindu Mekonnen Kassahun Bekele, and Laura German

41

Availability and consumption of woody and non-woody fuel biomass at Galessa Berhane Kidane, Mehari Alebachew, Laura German and Kassahun Bekele

51

Indigenous farm forestry trees and shrubs in Galessa watershed Kindu Mekonnen, Gerhard Glatzel and Monika Sieghardt

59

Spring management for integrated watershed management in Galessa Zenebe Admassu, Shenkut Ayele, Kindu Mekonnen, Getachew Alemu, Amare Ghizaw, Yohannes Gojjam, Mesfin Tsegaye, Berhane Kidane, Laura German and Tilahun Amede

67

Aspects influencing dissemination of barley varieties in Galessa watershed Birhanu Bekele

73

Scaling up and participatory evaluation of potato technologies in Galessa watershed Dagnachew Bekele, Zenebe Admassu, Gebremedhin W/Giorgis, Mesfin Tessera, Amare Ghizaw and Getachew Alemu

85

Integrating linseed varieties into barley-based cropping system of Galessa watershed Adugna Wakjira

93

Livestock management in the Galessa watershed Yohannes Gojjam, Kindu Mekonnen, Getachew Alemu and Fekede Fayissa

101

Livestock feed situation and prospects for improvement in Galessa watershed Fekede Feyissa, Getnet Assefa and Yohannes Gojjam

109

Collective action institutions and their implications in policy options for natural resources management Shenkut Ayele, Zenebe Admassu,Laura German, Mesfin Tsegaye, Tesema Tolera, Kiflu Bedane, Kassahun Bekele, Amare Ghizaw

125

i

Preface This publication is the result of integrated watershed management research conducted at Galessa watershed in central highlands of Ethiopia. A workshop entitled ‘Working with Rural Community for Integrated Natural Resources Management’ was held at Holetta Research Center on 28-29 February 2008 to present and discuss research results. Participants of the Workshop included farmers, wereda and zonal agricultural and rural bureaus experts, researchers, NGOs and policymakers. It is my belief that this publication is important source of information on integrated watershed management in Ethiopia and serves as reference for development, research, and education and training purposes. Numerous individuals and groups have been instrumental in the conduct of the research and making the results ready for use. First of all, I would like to acknowledge farmers and development agents of the Galessa watershed who made the research to bear fruit. Their participation, hospitality and tolerance during different stages of watershed management processes are gratefully acknowledged. I will also like to extend my sincere thanks to the different offices in West Shewa Zone and Dendi Wereda, particularly the office of agriculture and rural development and office of rural water development. My thanks also go to all researchers who participated in this research. Special recognition is given to Dr. Kindu Mekonnen, Dr.Adugna Wakjira, Ato Yohannes Gojjam, Ato Birhanu Bekele and Ato Fekede Feyissa for organizing the Workshop and critically reviewing the papers. I am deeply indebted of the financial support the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research and African Highlands Initiative project.

Zenebe Admassu Project Coordinator, AHI, Ginchi Benchmark Site July 2008

iii

Opening Address Solomon Assefa Director General, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research

On behalf of the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research and me, it is my pleasure and honor to address this Workshop of ‘Working with Rural Community for INRM: experiences from participatory integrated watershed management at Galessa.’ Ethiopian agriculture is mainly concentrated in the highlands, which contain nearly 85 percent of the population, 95 percent of the cultivated land, and 80 percent of cattle, which form a critical part of Ethiopia's oxplow cultivation system. Ethiopian highlands are the major sources of staple crop production, which is dominated by cereals, though enset is an important staple in the southern parts makes up 65 percent of the total agricultural value-added with livestock production. Land degradation, especially soil erosion, declining soil fertility, deforestation, poor land management cultivation practices, increasing number of population, and the load of poverty on environment deterioration, are the main features observed in the Ethiopian agricultural sector in particular and the sub-Saharan countries in general. For instance, 2/3 of the population of Africa is affected by land degradation. In Ethiopian highlands, soil erosion on cropland averages 42 tons per hectare per year and it is much higher on steeper slopes. If this soil erosion rate continues, more than 6 million hectares of additional crop and pastureland will become unusable. The gross discounted cumulative cost of erosion in Ethiopia has been estimated to be as high as $1.25 billion/year. It is also well known that the Ethiopian highlands account for nearly half of the African highlands. The Galessa highland which is part of the central highlands of Ethiopia in which the benchmark site of AHI project is located has the following major features: Loss of soil, water, nutrient, and seed as a result of soil erosion; Loss of indigenous trees; Poor and declining soil fertility; Low crop productivity and diversity; Poor quality and quantity of water resources;

iv Lack of feed resources and low productivity livestock; and Lack of collective action on NRM.

Any intervention by governmental or NGOs to improve the above situations should focus on maximizing growth in agricultural production and minimizing natural resource degradation. Having policies, institutions and technologies as the conditioning factors for influencing farmers in their decision on the use of natural resources are also critical areas to be addressed. Any of these efforts should be in line with the developmental policies of the Government of Ethiopia. Moreover, for concrete, targeted and mission-based approaches we need to think differently about dissemination of technology, knowledge and information. This is the task ahead of us. This is the current agenda we are dealing with in our business process reengineering activity: aiming at changing our research process to be cost-effective, client-oriented and capable of producing quality products and services, and letting clients to have technological options to change their activities and lives. The Holetta Research Center has been conducting research on integrated natural resources management using participatory integrated watershed management and its approach is found to be encouraging since its efforts are in line with the development policies and strategies of the Government of Ethiopia. Thus, Government of Ethiopia expects more feasible results from the HRC/AHI developmental research efforts at Galessa watershed and hopes that the experience from this site will be scaled up to other similar areas as fast as possible. Wishing you very successful deliberations in the two days, I declared this workshop officially opened. I thank you!

African Highlands Initiative Project in Galessa Kindu Mekonnen and Zenebe Admassu Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research Holetta Research Center P.O .Box 2003, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Introduction African Highlands Initiative (AHI) is an eco-regional research program that brings together national and international research expertise, local government representatives, and development partners that strongly share a commitment to work with local communities to improve their livelihoods while reversing natural resource degradation. AHI is hosted by the National Agricultural Research Institutes (NARIs) in pilot countries who are members of the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa (ASARECA). The research agenda of the AHI is implemented through a collaborative arrangement involving EIAR and other institutions in east African countries. The research activities at Galessa and other AHI sites are conducted in an integrated way through action and formal research to find approaches for systems intensification and watershed management, institutional innovations for research and development (R&D), developing and disseminating approaches for sustainable livelihoods, and advancing impact. This paper highlights the evolution of the AHI project and its research and development achievements at Galessa and surrounding areas, challenges, constraints, and limitation for the project activities

Evolution of the Project AHI was initiated in 1995 in five countries (Kenya, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Uganda, and Tanzania). The project started at Galessa areas of Dendi Wereda, Oromiya Region in 1997. AHI works in highland areas that are densely populated, have poor or declining natural resource endowments and, due to unsuitable management practices and limited levels of investment, have reached the point where people and

2

Kindu and Zenebe

landscapes can no longer provide livelihood needs. The project aims at contributing towards food security by improving Natural Resources Management (NRM) and agricultural productivity in the highlands of East African countries. The AHI project has been operational at Ginchi/Galessa with four consecutive phases.

The first phase (1995‐1997) In this initial period, research was conducted with small grants, geographically scattered and having disciplinary research oriented agenda.

The second phase (1999‐2000) In this phase, research was geographically aligned and team-based. Improving income and investment through diversification and intensification, soil conservation and fertility maintenance and improvement, and integrated pest management were major taskforces during the second phase. Entry points were considered as strategies to work with farmers.

The third phase (2002‐2004) AHI concentrated in selected watersheds focussing on development approaches and Integrated Natural Resources Management (INRM). In the third phase, social issues and process documentation received much attention. The approaches in phase three were highly participatory and interdisciplinary.

The fourth phase (2005‐2007) The focuses of the fourth phase were scaling up of technologies and knowledge, institutionalizing the concepts of integrated watershed management and strengthening of local institutions and bylaws. Leaflets, posters, discussion forums, publications, web sites, trainings and cross site visits were the most important tools to achieve the scaling out and up efforts.

Achievements The AHI project in collaboration with the Holetta Research Center of EIAR has enormous achievements in terms of resources assessment, technology development and promotion, capacity building and production of various publications (Kindu et al., 2002; Kindu et al.,

African Highland Initiative

3

2006; Yohannes et al., 2006). The following are some of the achievements or findings of the project:

Resource characterization The following were the major achievements registered on assessing resources in the different sites of the Project • • • • • • •

•

Characterization of the farming systems, identification and prioritization of major problems and development of interventions plans executed at Galessa Qota Gisher Kebele; Indigenous Rhizobia for legume vetch evaluated in fallow lands; Herbage dry matter productivity of seasonally waterlogged communal grazing land, forest margin and short arable fallow lands assessed; A potato leaf disease such as late blight identified as the major production constraint; Livestock production systems and development opportunities studied at Galessa; Agroforestry potentials and opportunities identified both in the watershed and the surrounding areas; Availability and consumption of woody and non-woody biomass as source of fuel studied; and Biophysical, socioeconomic, institutional and other issues explored at Galessa watershed.

On‐farm research • • •

•

•

Five released varieties of potatoes were introduced as entry point and evaluated for their performance. Out of which three have been found promising for further production and utilization; Five improved barley varieties were introduced to Galessa and evaluated on different farmers' fields. Among the varieties DIMTU, ARDU 12-60B and HB42 were promising for dissemination; More than 10 multipurpose tree (MPTs) and shrub species were introduced and evaluated for their adaptability and growth around homesteads and open fields. Five of the species adapted more than the others; Loose-rock check dam and brush wood-check dam combined with Erytherina spp (Korch) and Hagenia abyssinica (Koso) for gully stabilization were evaluated. From this experiment, Korch combined with temporary structures found to be more effective; The use of biomass transfer of live-fence leguminous shrubs for soil fertility management and yield of barley were evaluated, and three species identified as potential sources of plant nutrients;

Kindu and Zenebe

4 •

•

•

• • • • •

The possibility of potato production with the application of compost was tested in comparison to the application of other plant nutrient sources. The combined use of compost and inorganic fertilizer has been identified better than the other options in terms of various indictors; Fifty forage accessions and species were introduced and evaluated for their adaptation and forage production. Out of which Oats (1693, D-27 and A-20) and Hairy vetch (2438, 2437, and 2465) reported to be better in terms of their adaptability and biomass production; Conventional and improved bacterial wilt management packages were tested on six infested farms. The percent incidence of the bacterial wilt was lower for the improved than the conventional management packages; Two improved Triticale varieties were introduced and their performance evaluated. Out of which, Mayne performed better than the other varieties; Introduction and performance evaluation of six different Apple varieties were carried out. Royal Galla, Winter banana and Jonago red were found to be good in terms of different growth parameters; Improved linseed varieties were evaluated. Variety CI-1652x Omega/23/A was better than the other varieties; Evaluation of field pea as a break crop for barely fallow production was tested. Out of which Holetta performed well in terms of yield (1.6 t ha-1); and Run-off, soil and nutrient losses from the different land use systems have been assessed. The control plots (without soil bund) had the highest soil loss (40 t ha-1 per season).

Scaling out • • • •

Improved linseed varieties disseminated through informal seed multiplication. More than 130 households have benefited from this technology promotion activity; Four improved food barley varieties such as HB 42, ARDU 1260B, HB1307 and Shegie promoted on 15 farmers fields; Informal potato seed multiplication has been conducted through six farmer research groups (FRGs). Almost all the watershed inhabitants have benefited from this seed multiplication scheme; and More than 150,000 MPTs seedlings have been planted in and outside the watershed.


5

Capacity building • • • •

Trainings were provided for researchers, development agents, farmers and other stakeholders in Ethiopia, Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya; Cross-site visits were organized for researchers, farmers and agricultural experts in Areka, Konso, Derashe and Ankober; Field days have been organized for researchers, farmers and other stakeholders to visit on-farm research activities and exchange experiences; and Workshops were organized in and outside the county to share successes and failures.

The capacity building activities of the project helped to built thrust between farmers and researchers; created awareness and demand on crop, livestock, NRM related technologies; and improved farmers’ knowledge on locally available resources. In addition to these the following achievements were recorded • • • • • •

Three springs developed through collective action and negotiation; Mini-weather station established in the watershed; Community based nursery established in the watershed; Seven diffuse light stores constructed for better management of the potato seeds; Twelve energy saving stoves introduced and demonstrated to the farmers; and Three crossbred cows were introduced.

Publications The lessons from the research, development, and capacity building efforts of the project were published and publicized to the users through various information dissemination mechanisms. The publications include reports, proceedings, working papers, policy briefs, farmers’ products (posters and leaflets) and peer reviewed journals. The targets of these publications include research organizations at national and international level; development and extension organizations and practitioners with an interest in conceptual synthesis of “good practice”; and policy-makers interested in more widespread application of lessons and successes.

Kindu and Zenebe

6

Constraints • • • • • • • •

Ambitious plan with low resource provision; Unplanned shift from one phase to the other, which has resulted in suspension of ongoing research activities; Inadequate budget and vehicle allocation; Late release of funds; Absence of clear terms of references (TOR) for team members; High turnover of team members, site coordinators and steering committee members; Lack of incentive for team members; and Authorship related problems mainly created from the regional office.

Conclusions and Recommendations The Project should be able to device intervention mechanisms for the aforementioned constraints. Similarly, the project should assess itself to provide answers for the following queries: • • • •

Could the project able to apply the principles of participatory research and integrated/holistic approach in its research system at Galessa? Has the project managed to develop approaches and methods for INRM? Has the project brought a significant impact on the life of farmers and the management of natural resources? and Has the project attempted to replicate its successes and lessons in similar areas of the highlands?

References Kindu M, Bekele K and Hailu B. 2002. Experiences of Participatory Research on Natural Resources Management at Galessa. In: Gemechu, K. et al. (eds). Towards Farmers’ Participatory Research: Attempts and Achievements in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia. Kindu M, Getachew A, Yohanes G, Kassue A, Taddesse G, Agaje T, German L, Tilahun A, Stroud A, Paulos D and Asgelil D. 2006. Galessa Watershed, Ethiopia: Processes, Major Findings, and Lessons from the Exploration Phase. In: Amede, T. et al. (eds). Integrated Natural Resource Management


7

in Practice: Enabling Communities to Improve Mountain Livelihoods and Landscapes. Yohannes G, Agajie T, Kindu M, Getachew A and Tessema T. 2006. Approaches and Findings of AHI Phase 1 and 2 on Participatory Research at Galessa Benchmark Site. In: Amede, T. et al. (eds). Integrated Natural Resource Management in Practice: Enabling Communities to Improve Mountain Livelihoods and Landscapes.

Participatory Integrated Watershed Management: Lessons from the central highlands of Ethiopia Zenebe Admassu1, Kindu Mekonnen1, Getachew Alemu1, Yohannes Gojjam1, Birhanu Bekele1, Demeke Nigussie1, Laura German2, Tilahun Amede3 and Chris Opondo4 1

Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research Holetta Research Center P.O. Box 2003 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 2 Centre for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia 3 International Water Management Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 4 African Highlands Initiative, Uganda, Kampala

Introduction Integrated watershed management (IWM) is a process of formulating and carrying out a course of action to managing human activities in an area defined by watershed boundaries in order to protect and rehabilitate land and water, and associated aquatic and terrestrial resources, while recognizing the benefits of orderly growth and development. It is an integrated and holistic approach to the development of an area with the ultimate objective of improving the quality of the live of the people who dwell within it (FAO, 2000). It is not different within the watershed domain where multiple actors see in the approach a means to accomplish disparate objectives. This has resulted in multiple visions among different professionals of the “watershed approach”. Among agronomists, watershed approach is seen as a means of scaling out technologies, primarily those for soil and water conservation or generally for environmental protection (Hinchcliffe et al., 1995). For the water resource sector and policy-makers, it is seen as a means for enhancing environmental services and public goods emanating from upper catchments for the society at large (FAO, 2000). Conservationists view it as a framework for enabling trans-boundary natural resource management (NRM) in which livelihood concerns are often addressed only to the extent that they help to further conservation goals (van der Linde et al., 2001). Yet among social scientists and others, watershed management is seen as a framework for enhancing

10

Zenebe et.al

collective action and equity in natural resource access and governance, or livelihood problems that can’t be solved at farm or household level (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2002). The principal factors influencing watershed operations are physiographic, edaphic, climatic and socio-economic. The sever degradation of natural resources is a challenge to the developing countries in their poverty reduction and sustainable development strategies. It also worsens the poverty situation and affects livelihood, infrastructure, asset building and overall economic growth.

Choosing the approach Due to demographic pressure the average landholding in the Ethiopian watersheds is often fragmented and less than one ha (Zenebe, 2005). The fragmented landholding (3-5 parcels) coupled with the improper landuse system, nutrient depletion, drought and drainage problem, low crop and livestock productivity worsened the situation. Deforestation for cultivation, wood for fuel and construction, overgrazing, conversion of marginal lands to agriculture is escalating the problem of soil erosion and land degradation than ever. Although substantial efforts have been made to halt the problem, the achievements are far below satisfactory. The lack of integration from the different disciplines, sectors and limited level of participation of the stakeholders are among the limiting factors contributed to low level of success. Farmers’ involvement in problem identification, priority setting, planning and implementation of the programs has been minimal. This calls for a concerted effort of farmers, researchers of various disciplines, other organizations and institutions on NRM for conservation, enhancement and efficient utilization of the resource base aimed at increased productivity with the end goal of rural poverty alleviation. The conventional fragmented and linear research approach has been weak to address the overall viability of the agricultural system due to the complexity of the NRM problems and the need for collective action in addition to individual solutions. Thus, there is a need for the interaction between social, technological, economic and policy dimensions; an interdisciplinary approach to problem identification, planning, implementation and participatory monitoring and evaluation; and full participation of all stakeholders.

Participatory integrated watershed management

11

Participation and integration in watershed management In PIWM, the approach can be qualified through two aims. First, the process must be participatory in terms of the particular issues to be worked on, and how related activities are carried out (Hinchcliffe et al., 1995; Rhoades, 2000). “Participation” means different things to different people. All too often, however, it is taken to mean mere turn-out at community fora, undermining true participation in decision-making and benefits. Throughout the diverse stages of watershed management, we have experimented with diverse forms of participation, from equity to representation to negotiation. This is simply involvement of all stakeholders in problem definition, planning, implementation and monitoring and evaluations. Second, the process must be integrated. While different people may define integration differently, a common approach is to emphasize the integration of disciplines (technical, social and institutional dimensions) (Bellamy et al., 1998; FAO, 1977; Reddy, 2000) or objectives (conservation, food security, income generation) (Shah, 1998). While it is increasingly clear that the success of watershed management programs rests on the integration of conservation with livelihood goals and technical with institutional interventions (Reddy, 2000; Shah, 1998). Few programs have effectively achieved such integration (Rhoades, 2000; Shah, 1998). It is therefore essential that any approach at integration integrate an understanding of the principles operating within natural and social systems (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2002; Reddy, 2000).

Site Selection and Delineation Site selection Watershed management was initiated by the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR). A multidisciplinary team composed of different disciplines from different research centers was formed. The team selected three watersheds for the aforementioned purpose. The team used secondary data (topographic map) to identify the candidate watersheds. Initially, seven candidate watersheds were selected. The team categorized the seven watershed sites into three main agroecologies, namely high, intermediate and low rainfall. Galessa and Garie Arera (West Shewa Zone) and Tumano Abdie (North Shewa Zone) were classified under M2-5 sub-agroecology and selected to represent high altitude and high rainfall areas.

12

Zenebe et.al

The intra-group comparison was made with the help of weighted values attached to each criterion in the group. The criteria include agroecological representation, prevalence of resource management and land degradation problems, distinct outlet and hydrologic boundary. The team also considered that the watershed falls within the same social and administrative boundary, diversity in the current and potential land-use systems, presence of inhabitants within the watershed, absence of intensive interventions by other government and NGOs. The size should also be large enough to accommodate potential challenges and small enough to be manageable with the existing resources and measure the impacts. The watershed should not be far from the implementing research center and all weather roads. Based on those criteria, Galessa watershed was selected to represent the highlands and high rainfall areas. It is after that the implementation mandate was given to Holetta Research Center (HRC).

Delineation A multidisciplinary site team composed of researchers from HRC and Dendi district agricultural office was formed. Based on the preliminary outlet identified during the site selection process, the watershed boundary was delineated using primary data (GPS readings), secondary data (topographic map) and in consultation with the local community. After delineation, the Digital Elevation Model was derived (figure 1). Although, watershed boundary delineation was flexible, final delineation showed that the total area of the watershed was about 340 ha. Administratively, the watershed is found in Dendi wereda, West Shewa Zone of the Oromiya Regional State. Most areas of the watershed are found inside the Galessa Qoftu Kebele and some portion of Toma village is within the Galessa Qotagisher Kebele. The altitude of the watershed ranges from 2820 to 3100 m and located at 09o06'54"N to 09o07'52"N and 37o 07'16"E to 37o08'54"E. Some areas of the watershed around the primary school were excluded. This is because the team felt that inclusion of the areas around the primary school could make the watershed unmanageable. On the contrary, the team decided to include some areas around Tiro. That means the delineation did not strictly follow a hydrological boundary.


13

Figure 1. The digital elevation model of Galessa watershed

Diagnosing NRM Problems The focus of diagnosis was to characterize, identify and prioritize watershed problems. The main procedures involved include: establishment of a community entry protocols, identifying watershed issues, generating consolidated list of watershed issues and participatory ranking of identified watershed issues.

Community entry protocols Social protocols are crucial when entering to a community to initiate collective actions. This involves contacting different parties including community leaders, local elders, religious leader and local government. Accordingly, this was done through informal visits and scheduled meetings, consultation of local residents on the protocol for handling such initiations. The local leaderships were informed about the project’s aims. Owing to the already existing collaboration of farmers with HRC, entry for watershed activities was not difficult. However, the procedure for community entry was followed and different stakeholders (local government at different levels, local institutions, community leaders and influential people) were consulted both informally and formally.

14

Zenebe et.al

Identifying watershed issues Tools for participatory problem diagnosis must enable the identification of constraints from farms to ‘neighborhoods’ to landscapes and even the administrative units that govern certain dimensions of land use within these biophysical units (German et al., 2006). It must also retain a flexible interpretation of watershed boundaries and processes. In other words, problems identified by farmers that manifest themselves beyond the boundaries of the watershed, i.e., resource conflicts with nonwatershed residents or do not easily conform to our notions of a watershed problem should not be ignored due to our own rigid conceptions or interests. They often hold the key to solutions or may hinder our efforts when left unaddressed. The case of flexible boundaries can be illustrated by the Galessa watershed, where farmers residing outside the watershed have access to water supplies and grazing land at the watershed. Unless the management issue of these resources brought into decision-making, innovations will be made difficult. The impact can be manifested either through failure to cooperate; for example, controlling livestock movement or from unequal contributions to maintaining a shared resource, which will undermine community enthusiasm for future investments. This methodology enables diverse social groups residing within the watershed to be systematically consulted when identifying and prioritizing watershed issues (German et al., 2006). A set of variables likely to influence the relative priority given to watershed issues is used to select interviewees for participatory watershed diagnosis. These include wealth (wealthier and poorer households), gender (male and female), age (elders and youth) and – in watersheds where the location of landholdings differs greatly by household, and may influence the extent to which natural resource degradation influences livelihoods – landscape location. Identification and comparison of watershed issues, prioritization of watershed issues and data analysis are all done according to these predefined social categories. When identifying watershed issues, representation problem could be addressed by breaking the larger group into sub-groups (gender or age). One of the reasons in which the Galessa watershed team attempted to capture diverse views during diagnostic, planning and monitoring activities were to solicit views from small groups of land users grouped according to social categories of presumed relevance. During watershed diagnosis, for example, resource users were grouped according to


15

gender, wealth, age and landscape location (where landholdings are distributed differently on the landscape and relevant spatial categories exist). This idea of triangulation also comes in when considering group vs. individual interviews. Based on these methods about 39 watershed issues were identified by different social groups.

Generating watershed issues Once watershed issues have been identified by different social groups, responses from the different groups were lumped into a single list and repetitions eliminated to reduce the list to a manageable number of issues for subsequent ranking and planning. Thirty-nine watershed issues, which were identified by local residents at Galessa, were combined on the basis of their similarity into 18 issues (Table 1). This involved a great deal of discussion, to ensure that the issues had the same meaning when articulated in the farmers’ own words before deciding to combine them.

Ranking watershed issues Once a condensed list of watershed issues has been identified, a representative sample of watershed residents were again consulted on the basis of established social parameters such as gender, wealth, age and landscape locations. That time, however, they were asked to rank the relative importance of identified issues. Two ranking methods were tested in the Watershed: absolute and pair-wise ranking. Using the first method, participants were asked to give a rating of 1 to 10 for all identified watershed issues. When using the pair-wise ranking, each watershed issue was contrasted with all the other issues to systematically discern their relative importance. Each issue was compared with each other issue, and the number corresponding to the more important of the two was entered into the box. To finalize the exercise, the frequency of prioritization of each issue, for example, the number of times issue number “14” was put in a box was tabulated, and the corresponding number placed in the right-hand column. There was a tendency among agricultural researchers to prefer this approach for its greater rigor, given the subjective nature of absolute ranking. For example, what one person means by an “8” may be different from what another person means by an 8. This also complicates the process of averaging ranks, supporting the use of pair-wise ranking. Pair-wise ranking overcomes this limitation by systematically comparing each issue with each other issue to understand their relative importance. However, it takes more time.

Zenebe et.al

16

Table 1. Consolidating watershed issues into a condensed list at Galessa watershed Issues

Original farmers statements Crops washed away in heavy rains, flooding of cropland , loss of topsoil due to erosion, insufficient soil conservation and fertilizer washed away in heavy rains Shortage of water for livestock and humans in dry season, conflict from competition over water (springs)

Loss of water, soil, seeds and fertilizer due to excess run off Water shortage for livestock and human beings Poor water quality Problems associated with the lack of common drainage Crop failure from shortage of rains Soil fertility decline and limited access to fertilizer

Low soil fertility, high cost of fertilizer, insufficient farmyard manure, reduced productivity of crops and livestock from shortened fallow

Feed shortage

Shortage of grazing land, feed shortage in the dry season and Conflict from grazing of individual fallow land Lack of oxen for ploughing fields

Shortage of oxen Land shortage due to population pressure

Land shortage and cultivation of upper slopes due to high population, and effects of population pressure on large families Lack of improved varieties for certain crops

Lack of improved crop varieties Wood and fuel shortage

Shortage of fuel wood, shortage of wood for fencing, houses and livestock structures, absence of trees for livestock (shade and grazing), deforestation due to high population pressure and dependence on Eucalyptus due to deforestation Loss of indigenous tree species

Loss of indigenous tree species

Negative effects of Eucalyptus on crops and soil, conflict from Eucalyptus on farm boundaries and negative impact of Eucalyptus on water availability Theft of crops in the field during food shortages

Effects of eucalyptus on soils, crops and water Theft of agricultural produce Conflict from paths and boundaries Low productivity of animals

farm

Limited sharing of seed Conflict between watering points

Poor quality of drinking water, need for cooperation in fencing and cleaning watering points Conflict from drainage of water from fields , need for cooperation in the location of drainage ditches and need for cooperation in soil conservation activities Crop failure from shortage of rains

villages

over

Conflicts from farmland paths and borders Need for cooperation to reduce the number of livestock Need for cooperation in the exchange of seed and planting material Invasion of livestock drinking area by neighboring villages, blockage of paths to watering points


17

Analysis Following ranking, each interview was entered into a separate worksheet in Microsoft Excel. The worksheets were labeled according to the village, social group and the number of the interviewee Village and watershed level syntheses was compiled by averaging the ranks of individuals or groups, as follows: Village‐level analysis of ranks: Prepare village-level averages of ranks for each social group by averaging the ranks given to each watershed issue by individuals belonging to each category (Table 2). Prepare single village-level ranks for each watershed issue by either averaging the ranks given by all interviewees from the village or averaging the ranks of each social group from the village. Watershed‐level analysis of ranks: At the watershed level, group averages were again compiled. This time averaging was done across social groups at village level rather than across individuals representing these groups. This was done by averaging across social groups rather than individuals. It is also possible to compile watershed-level ranks by village rather than by social unit to see how village priorities differ. Finally, absolute or pair-wise ranks were converted to priorities by giving a “1” to the top priority (highest averages) for each social group, a “2” to the second highest priority, and so on. The highest priorities for this watershed were the loss of indigenous tree species, which is the highest priority for 4 out of 6 social groups, and poor water quality – which

Zenebe et.al

18 Table 2.

Sample database-socially disaggregated ranks at village level using pair-wise ranking

4.67

2.33

5.00

4.00

5.00

8.67

2

5.87

5.44

9.67

3.00

2.00

4.00

8.00

6.00

5.5b

4.88

4.75

5.33

2.33

1.67

2.50

9.67

7.00

1

Problems associated with lack of common drainage Crop failure from shortage of rains Soil fertility decline and limited access to fertilizer Feed shortage

8.82

8.75

8.00

8.33

8.00

7.50

11.33

9.33

16

5.71

5.44

9.00

9.33

2.67

1.00

4.67

6.00

5.5

5.82

5.67

6.00

2.67

3.67

3.00

10.00

8.67

8

5.41

5.47

3.67

6.00

4.67

6.50

7.33

4.67

7

Shortage of oxen

5.18

5.28

3.67

5.00

6.00

7.00

2.67

7.33

4

Young

4.97

Old

5.00

Women

Loss of water, soil, seeds and fertilizer due to excess run-off Water shortage for livestock and human beings Poor water quality

Men

Low wealth

Ameya Village

High wealth

Overall priority

(b) Village average (of group ranks)

(c) Social groups

(a) Village average (of all interviewees)

Watershed issues

Land shortage due to 5.47 5.69 3.00 2.67 7.33 9.50 6.00 5.67 population pressure Lack of improved crop 6.65 6.72 6.33 6.00 7.67 8.00 7.33 5.00 varieties Wood and fuel 5.71 5.72 3.67 4.67 7.67 6.00 8.00 4.33 shortage Loss of indigenous 5.06 5.00 1.67 6.67 7.33 4.00 6.33 4.00 tree species Effect of eucalyptus on 7.59 7.58 8.00 7.67 6.67 7.50 9.33 6.33 soil, crop and water Theft of agricultural 8.94 8.89 12.33 12.00 8.33 8.00 8.00 4.67 produce Conflict from paths 9.47 9.53 10.33 10.67 11.00 10.50 8.67 6.00 and farm boundaries Low productivity of 5.71 5.81 3.33 5.00 8.00 7.50 5.00 6.00 animals Limited sharing of 6.75 6.97 7.67 7.67 8.50 9.00 5.00 4.00 seed points 9.13 Conflict between 8.33 10.67 11.00 9.00 2.00 9.00 8.33 villages over watering points a These were determined from column ‘b’ b when average ranks (column ‘b’) are the same, final priorities are averaged. If as in this case two watershed issues have the same average rank, then their positions (5th and 6th) are averaged.

is within the top 3 priorities for 5 out of 6 social groups (Table 3).

9 12 10 3 14 17 18 11 13 15

Participatory integrated watershed management Table 3.

19

Sample database-socially disaggregated ranks at watershed level (ranks averaged by social groups across all watershed villages).

elder

youth

High wealth

Low wealth

men

women

Elder

youth

High ealth Low wealth

(b) Watershed priorities of each social group

women

(a) Group ranks averaged across WS villages

men

Watershed issues

5.5

5.5

5.3

7.1

6.6

6.3

6

6

3

9

6

7

9.3

6.9

8.1

6.6

7.0

5.3

11

9

11

8

7

4

3.4

5.2

4.9

5.2

3.1

3.3

2

5

2

3

1

1

Problems associated with lack of common drainage Crop failure from shortage of rains Soil fertility decline and limited access to fertilizer Feed shortage

10.8

9

10.9

11.3

11.1

11.3

15

12

15

15

16

16

9.6

8.0

6.9

10.4

4.4

7.2

12

10

9

14

3

8

4.6

4.8

5.7

6.3

4.7

5.3

3

4

5

7

4

3

6.4

9.1

5.6

7.7

8.4

9.9

7

13

4

10

11

15

Shortage of oxen

9.6

4.7

7.3

5.6

7.0

7.4

13

3

10

5

8

10

Land shortage due to population pressure Lack of improved crop varieties Wood and fuel shortage

5.4

4.1

5.7

3.7

6.0

6.0

5

2

6

2

5

5

7.0

10.9

8.9

7.7

7.5

9.3

9

15

13

11

10

13

5.0

6.8

6.8

5.4

7.5

6.3

4

8

8

4

9

6

Loss of indigenous tree species Effect of eucalyptus on soil, crop and water Theft of agricultural produce Conflict from paths and farm boundaries Low productivity of animals Limited sharing of seed points Conflict between villages over watering points

2.7

3.9

4.3

3.3

4.3

3.3

1

1

1

1

2

2

9.9

8.2

10.0

9.9

10.1

9.9

14

11

14

13

14

14

14.6

14.6

12.9

12.1

12.4

13.5

18

18

18

18

17

18

13.2

13.3

12.3

11.6

12.8

13.5

17

17

16

16

18

17

7.4

10.9

8.6

7.9

8.5

7.8

10

16

12

12

12

11

6.7

5.8

5.9

5.8

9.7

7.3

8

7

7

6

13

9

12.3

10.5

12.6

11.9

10.2

9.2

16

14

17

17

15

12

Loss of water, soil, seeds and fertilizer due to excess run-off Water shortage for livestock and human beings Poor water quality

Planning The planning methodology consisted of clustering of identified issues according to strong functional relationships; identification of objectives and research questions according to higher-level system goals; and development of integrated R&D interventions at site team and community levels.

20

Zenebe et.al

Clustering issues based on functional relationships This section describes the process for moving from discrete watershed issues identified by local residents to the planning of an integrated research and development agenda. The planning was done at the level of support institutions (R&D teams), but must be harmonized with local watershed planning process. The first step was the creation of functional “clusters” defined by strong causal relationships between discrete watershed issues, and which simplify the watershed agenda by providing focus and enabling several related issues to be addressed simultaneously. Two principles were employed to develop an integrated intervention strategy from the list of identified watershed problems (social and ecological principles). The first principle was to identify issues of high priority to most social groups. The idea behind this was that by focusing on the issues of high relevance to most watershed residents, future R&D efforts are likely to have greater pay-offs as a function of the broad social support they receive within watershed communities. The second principle was to identify watershed issues that are functionally linked. The rationale behind this is that such issues should be managed jointly to enable greater pay-offs from investments and explicit management of the causal interactions and spin-offs (both positive and negative) characterizing interactions between these issues at present and after any intervention. Of these original 18 watershed issues, eight were identified as having highest priority by most of the farmers (Table 4). The list includes poor water quality and quantity, loss of indigenous tree species, loss of soil, seed and fertilizer from excess runoff, low soil fertility, shortage of oxen, lack of improved seed, feed and fuel shortages. Table 4: Result of ranking at the watershed level Issue Loss of indigenous tree species (LITS) Poor water quality (PWQ) Land shortage due to high population (LSHP) Soil fertility decline (SFD) Wood shortage (WS) Loss of seed and fertility because of runoff (LSF) Lack of access to improved seeds (LAIS) Shortage of oxen (SO) Water shortage for livestock and human (WSLH) Crop failure due to drought (CFD) Feed shortage (FS) Low productivity of animals (LPA)

Rank 3.5 4.2 5.1 5.1 6.1 6.2 6.8 7.1 7.4 8.0 8.1 8.6

Priority 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 -


21

Of these eight issues, it was decided that only seven would be addressed. Due to limited options, the shortage of oxen was temporarily excluded in the list. According to their strong functional relationships, the seven identified issues were categorized into two major clusters (themes): Cluster 1: Soil and water conservation and utilization This cluster includes poor water quality and quantity, loss of seed, fertilizer and soil from excess run-off, loss of indigenous tree species, and crop failure due to drought. The rationale for this clustering was on the recognition that: • • • •

water quality is being affected by seed, fertilizer and soil loss from the fields; substitution of indigenous trees with Eucalyptus has caused the depletion of groundwater and the drying of springs; integration of appropriate trees and soil conservation structures on the landscape could enhance spring recharge (water quantity) and reduce the loss of seed, fertilizer and soil from the landscape; and crop failure due to drought could be ameliorated by reducing water loss from run-off.

Cluster 2. Integrated nutrient management and production This cluster includes soil fertility decline, wood and fuel shortage, loss of indigenous tree species, limited access to improved seed, feed shortage, and land shortage. The rationale behind this clustering was on the recognition that: •

• • •

loss of indigenous tree species and fuel wood availability has exacerbated soil fertility decline through the increased use of cow dung and crop residues for fuel and the former must be dealt with the emphasis to ameliorate soil fertility decline; intensification of the system to reduce land pressure will require a balancing act so that increased agricultural production does not further compromise the already ailing nutrient status in the system; improved seed often requires high soil fertility, as well as placing a demand on already limited nutrient resources; and the traditional practice of rotating between cropland and fallow (for grazing) between seasons and years means that interventions in the livestock system will have a direct impact on the cropping system, and vice-versa.

The common logic behind these relationships caused the team to name this the “Integrated Production and Nutrient Management Cluster.” Clearly, the identification of such function clusters requires a relative

22

Zenebe et.al

intimate knowledge of the system. It is important to note that this knowledge can be provided either by farmers or researchers who have been working in the system in a participatory manner for some time. We would encourage that both options be explored when applying this methodology in the new sites. Both clusters were then drawn graphically in terms of the relationship between the problem and the integrated solutions. These diagrams were found to be much more user friendly, given their simplicity as well as their role in moving from problems to solutions. While these clusters are themselves functionally linked, the classification of issues into the above clusters enables workable integration of system components and emphasizes the strongest functional relationships.

Identifying objectives and research questions Integration in planning can be addressed from the standpoint of both component integration and disciplinary or sectoral integration. For the first of these, higher-level system goals should be specified for each cluster in order to avoid disintegration during planning. The following are examples of objective and research question in Soil and Water Conservation and Utilization (SWCU) Cluster: Overall SWCU Cluster Objective: To enhance the positive synergies between water, soil and tree management in micro-catchments. Primary research question: How can NRM practices (SWC structures, tree planting, drainage systems, etc.) enhance agricultural production/ productivity through decreased erosion while also enhancing spring recharge long-term? Accordingly, every sub-step has their own research objectives and questions under the framework of the respective clusters.

Developing integrated research and development interventions It is a general approach for planning that strengthens the articulation of research-development linkages. This forces R&D teams to ask the questions, “How can effective and equitable participatory action learning processes be facilitated?;” “What is the role of empirical research in bringing concrete change to local residents or off-site users?;” “What role can action research play in distilling general lessons from the change process?;” and, most importantly, “How can these different


23

contributions be effectively integrated and sequenced so as to maximize returns from R&D investments?” Three components in Planning for Integrated R&D Interventions were identified in Galessa watershed. Those were community action process; action research; and empirical research. Community action process Community action processes are short-term, evolving as new challenges and opportunities emerge. They are also important to mobilize the community through existing collective action institutions or establish new institutions for INRM. For example, negotiations on outfield intensification were a community action process at Galessa watershed during 2006. Negotiate whether spatial or temporal intensification processes are possible. Participatory action research Participatory action research (PAR) is emphatic on the need to include farmers and their aspirations, interests and priorities improving their engagement with development process (Opondo et al., 2006). Returns to research aims become joined but secondary. AHI promotes the use of PAR as a way to develop and test development process modalities, and reflections on the process. Its apparent results are used to inform the process as well as other actors who might be implementing similar processes elsewhere. The PAR process fosters local capacity building and given that it is a relatively new process for AHI’s partners and these partners also learn by doing. Coxhead and Buenavista (2001) observed that PAR enhances deeper involvement of farmers and relevant stakeholders in research process, transforming them from information providers to collegial partners. AHI uses an ‘experiential learning approach’ in that PAR has planning, action, reflection and re-planning stages. At each point of PAR documentation of the stages occurs. The action research process may be broken down into an iterative series of steps aimed at enable change, including participatory problem identification, planning, and implementation, monitoring and replanning. It is essentially a process of adaptive management that seeks to understand, through implementation, what works where and why. Empirical research (ER) While the merits of ER lie in its flexible, iterative nature, there is also a role for empirical research in which the objects of study and methods are

24

Zenebe et.al

fixed. While empirical research has been greatly criticized for leading to overly academic research and contributing little to real development, there are several instances where it is required to enable development outcomes (German and Stroud, 2004). For example, empirical research can assist in filling critical information gaps hindering agricultural development by shedding light on more illusive dimensions of perceived problems and solutions. In such cases, research questions can often be targeted by local residents. Other cases may require research to be targeted by outsiders to bring on sustainability and equity in the development process. Achieving quality in empirical research entails well-known standards for scientific research. Methods will vary according to the objectives and standards for research quality within the field of interest like biophysical and social sciences. Depending on the minimum level of technical knowledge required to derive reliable information, local residents can often be involved as researchers.

Participatory action planning This is annual breakdowns of major activities. It includes the costs involved, time line, detailed activities, expected outputs, means of communication of results, as well as the relative weight of each component out of the total project. The responsible persons for each activity were also be assigned. This plan was done with relevant stakeholders including farmers, researchers at different levels, governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations and policy makers at different levels. The action plan was revised every year based on the recommendations obtained from the participatory action learning and participatory monitoring and evaluations.

Implementation All the activities planned have been implemented based on their action plan. However, due to ambitious planning, some activities weren’t implemented according to the schedule.

Participatory monitoring and evaluation This is a process where different stakeholders are participating at different levels and different times. Three levels of the tool’s application are emphasized: participatory M&E at the watershed level, with local interest groups, and by the R&D team itself. The tool emphasizes how to move from proscriptive intervention process to an adaptive learning process that acknowledges the uncertainties and subjectivities in any


25

change process. This has been conducted during farmers’ research groups meetings, community meetings, field days, annual and biannual review meetings, informal transect walks of the researchers and farmers.

Conclusion Watersheds include resources that have different types of rights and associated rules. There are interactions among the resource users, the resources themselves, and the institutions that govern their access, use and management. The goal of watershed research is thus to understand these interactions at different scales and to use that knowledge as a basis for designing policies, institutions and technologies. Stakeholders’ involvement in problem identification, prioritization, planning and design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation can improve the effectiveness of watershed management projects. The use of socially disaggregated problem identification and prioritization methods can help to show which social categories are affected by which problems. Conventional methods of identifying stakeholders and facilitating their interaction are challenged by the diversity of stakeholders, interests, and claims on watershed resources. Accurate information on the impacts of human activity on watershed processes is one of the elements of PIWM. The ability of the research systems to negotiate, facilitate, recognize, and resolve conflicts can be as important as the technical skills. The skills of conflict resolution need to be built into the watershed research teams. Although the cost of facilitation is costly, working with all stallholders is very crucial for the effectiveness of PIWM.

References Bellamy JA, GT McDonald, and GJ Syme. 1998. Evaluating integrated resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 12: 337-353. Coxhead I and G Buenavista. 2001. Seeking sustainability: Challenges to agriculture development and environmental management in a Philippine watershed. Los Baños: Philippines Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development.

26

Zenebe et.al

Food and Agriculture Organization. 2000. Land-water linkages in rural watersheds: Introductory note. Land-Water Linkages in Rural Watersheds Electronic Workshop, 18-27 October, 2000. FAO, Rome. FAO. 1977. Guidelines for watershed management. FAO, Rome. German L and A Stroud. 2004. Integrating learning approaches for agricultural R&D. Brief B4, African Highlands Initiative (AHI), Kampala, Uganda. German L, M Hussein, Getachew A, Waga M, Tilahun A, and A Stroud. 2006. Participatory integrated watershed management: Evolution of concepts and methods. Working papers No. 11, African Highlands Initiative (AHI), Kampala, Uganda. Hinchcliffe F, I Guijt, JN Pretty and P Shah. 1995. New horizons: The economic, social and environmental impacts of participatory watershed development. IIED. Gatekeeper Series 50. pp 3-20. Meinzen-Dick R, A Knox, F Place, B Swallow. 2002. Innovation in natural resource management: The role of property rights and collective action in developing countries. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, D.C. 317 pp . Opondo C, L German, A Stroud and O Engorok. 2006. Lessons from using participatory action research to enhance farmer-led research and extension in southwestern Uganda. Working Paper No. 3, African Highlands Initiative (AHI), Kampala, Uganda. Shah A. 1998. Watershed development programmes in India: Emerging issues for environment-development perspectives. Economic and Political Weekly A66-A79. Reddy VR. 2000. Sustainable watershed management institutional approach. Economic and Political Weekly, 3435-3444.. Rhoades R. 2000. The participatory multipurpose watershed project: Nature’s salvation or Schumacher’s nightmare? In: Lal, R. (ed.) Integrated watershed management in the global ecosystem. CRC Press, London. pp 327-343. Van der Linde H, J Oglethorpe, T Sandwith, D Snelson and Y Tessema. 2001. Beyond boundaries: trans-boundary natural resource management in subSaharan Africa. Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, D.C. 166 Zenebe A. 2005. The Impact of Land tenure Systems on Soil and Water Conservation Practices in Berissa Watershed, Ethiopia. MSc Thesis, Waggeningen University and Research center, The Netherlands. Pp 107

Watershed‐based Soil and Water Conservation Experiences in Ethiopian Highlands Zenebe Admassu1, Amare Ghizaw1, Getachew Alemu1, Kindu Mekonnen1, Mesfin Tsegaye1, Tilahun Amede2 and Laura German3 1 Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Holetta Research Venter P.O. Box 2003 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2 International Water Management Institute, Addis Ababa, 3 Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia

Introduction Ethiopia has been described as one of the most serious soil erosion areas in the world (Blaikie, 1985). Soil erosion by water and its associated effects are recognized to be severe threats to the national economy of Ethiopia (Hurni, 1993; Sutcliffe, 1993). Since more than 85% of the country’s population depends on agriculture for living, physical soil and nutrient losses lead to food insecurity. Hurni (1990, 1993) estimated that soil loss due to erosion in Ethiopia amounts to 1493 million tons per year, of which about 42 t/ha per year is estimated to have come from cultivated fields and it can be even higher on steep slopes with a soil loss rate greater than 300 t/ha/yr (USAID, 2000). This is far greater than the tolerable soil loss as well as the annual rate of soil formation in the country. About 50% of the highlands of Ethiopia are already ‘significantly eroded and erosion causes a decline in land productivity at the rate of 2.2% per year. The highlands of Ethiopia in general experience severe soil erosion mainly due to steep terrain, poor surface cover, intensive cultivation of sloppy areas and degradation of grazing lands due to population and livestock pressure. Extensive outfield areas in Galessa watershed are underutilized and highly degraded. While household landholdings are some of the highest in Ethiopia yield and soil fertility levels are extremely low. Causes include the effect of repeated land reforms and public land tenure on

Zenebe et.al

28

perceived tenure security; a free grazing system that threatens perennial vegetation and conservation structures; and increased use of dung for fuel, diverting valuable nutrient resources from agricultural fields. Adoption of soil and water conservation measures is negligible due to farmers’ unwillingness to invest in activities with medium- and long-term benefits and the perception that outfield investments are made impossible by the free grazing system. Small landholdings and land fragmentation create additional challenges in constructing waterways to drain excess water from the landscape, because these structures must cross multiple plots of different landowners (Zenebe, 2005). The main objective of this study was to test different approaches that are important to encourage farmers to invest on soil and water conservation activities.

Methodology The study area The watershed is situated in Dendi Wereda at 09o06'54"N to 09o07'52"N and 37o 07'16"E to 37o08'54"E, West Shewa Zone of the Oromiya Regional State in the central highlands of Ethiopia. The watershed was 340 ha and the dominant crops grown in the area were barley, potato, and enset. The area has highly undulating, rolling & hilly topography ranging from 2820 to 3100 meters above mean sea level.

Approaches Farmers in the watershed have not been aware about the current situation of soil degradation and effective controlling methods. Different approaches were used to create public awareness on soil erosion and controlling mechanisms. Cross‐site visits and reflection meetings Two cross-site visits were organized for farmers: • •

The first visit was organized in 2004 to Debresina and Ankober weredas of the Amhara National Regional State; and The second visit was also organized in 2006 to Gunnuno watershed in Wolaita, Konso, and Derashe special weredas of Southern Nations Nationalities and People Regional State.

Watershed-based soil and water conservation

29

Farmers were selected by the general assembly of the watershed community based on village, gender, age, and wealth status. In both visits, a total of thirty farmers, three development agents, two subject matter specialists from the district and six researchers from Holetta Research Center participated in the visit. The two sites were selected because these areas are well known in rich experience in soil and water conservation in the country. Following the field visits, reflection meetings were organized at the watershed level. The first step used in reflection meeting was video show on what the farmers visited, how they were visiting and the discussions made during the visit. The second step was facilitating discussion after the video show to openly discuss on the issue. During the discussion farmers who visited the site explained and discussed what they have visited in each of the sites and the other farmers asked questions on some unclear issues. The role of researchers was to facilitate the forum. Empirical research Empirical research can also facilitate attitude change by making visible biophysical processes that are otherwise difficult to observe. An experiment conducted in Galessa on plots with and without soil bunds illustrated to farmers what is lost from their fields and what is retained as a result of conservation structures Formation of Farmers’ Research Groups (FRGs) Today, farmers’ involvement in agricultural research is not a new concept. FRGs can be formed through internal or external institutions. Internal initiation could happen when farmers themselves take self initiation to organize themselves in group to solve their common problems and request the research for technical help. On the other hand, research and extension organizations could take an initiation to form or organize groups based on specific objectives. In Galessa watershed, AHI project played a major role in initiation, organizing and soliciting as well as supporting funds. Accordingly, FRGs in erosion and soil and water conservation were established in the watershed in each village (Toma, Tiro, Sembo, kemete-lencha and Ameya). Since FRGs are expected to have a close link and intimate collaboration within the group and with members of the other groups, linking

30

Zenebe et.al

mechanisms and strategies need to be designed by the group right from the formation of groups. For this purpose, each FRG member had their own operational committee composed of five individuals. These individuals were the chairman, commander, secretary, treasurer, and a member. Negotiation support and bylaws reforms Several negotiations were conducted on watershed issues requiring collective action. The major issues required negotiation support and bylaw reform in the watershed were on bund spacing, common waterways and restricting free grazing as conservation structures and multipurpose trees and grasses were affected by livestock. Training Training both practical in the filed and theoretical levels was very important tool for awareness creation and capacity building. Each FRGs was trained on the causes of soil erosion and the major controlling methods. They have also trained how to design soil bunds, cut-off drains and waterways.

Participatory monitoring and evaluation This forum brought different stakeholders together at different levels. The major fora for PM&E were watershed meetings, field days, FRG meetings, annual review and planning meetings. Participatory monitoring and evaluation was used as an approach to create awareness, evaluate the different approaches, and filter the lessons from each activity and the major challenges. It was also used as a tool to generate information for re-planning and looking for alternative solutions.

Results and Lessons Awareness creation The farmers participated in the visit were very much impressed with the program (cross site visit) and the works of the farmers in the visited areas. The participating farmers from Galessa said that their attitude towards SWC is completely changed after they visited the selected areas. They also appreciated farmers in the visited areas and confirmed that they can change the Galessa watershed by applying integrated watershed management practices so that they can improve their livelihood. They


31

have also realized that this kind of arrangements can effectively change the farmers' attitude towards any planned interventions. The local indicators used by farmers to compare different treatments on soil and water loss experiments were the color and the amount of run-off leaving the plots as well as the mount of soil deposited on soil bunds. This indicators convinced farmers to construct soil bunds on their plots. During PM&E it was noted that farmers’ appreciation towards the advantage of soil bunds in terms of reducing soil loss and runoff, and their willingness to continue the construction of soil bunds in the future was highly improved. Training has facilitated SWC works and decreases the cost of design of these structures.

Change in attitude and perception Change in confidence in solving NRM problems and change in attitude of farmers towards soil erosion and controlling mechanisms has been increased as a result of different approaches tested. According to household survey, 67% of the watershed inhabitants have implemented soil and water conservation measures whereas only 10% of inhabitants living outside the watershed have implemented soil and water conservation measures. The same survey also showed that farmers’ perception on soil and water conservation and related activities has been improved after intervention (Table 1). Table 1. Knowledge, attitude and practice of Soil and water conservation after intervention Variables It is possible to conduct SWC measures collectively I have seen considerable benefit due to collective action (CA) in SWC Enough awareness has been created about CA in SWC There is a change of attitude in the society about the need of CA in SWC Farmers participation in SWC has increased after the intervention Bylaws have use for SWC

Percentages of respondents Agreed 97 97

Disagreed 3 3

Not sure 0 0

79.9 87.9

9 3

12.1 9.1

87.9

12.1

0

100

0

0

Another indicator for the change in attitude was the effectiveness of the bylaw for soil and water conservation activities. The result showed that the compliance on the developed bylaw (Figure 1) was very high the watershed. This means majority of the farmers have obeyed by the bylaw formulated by them.

Zenebe et.al

32

Frequency

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Everyone complies

Majority complies

Minority complies

No one complies

Figure 1. Community compliance of bylaws in SWC at Galessa watershed

Soil bunds and planting MPTs and grasses Farmers voluntarily constructed soil bunds in all villages of the watershed and planted different multipurpose trees and grasses. Soil bunds have been constructed and different MPTs have been planted on soil bunds since 2004. . A total of 35 hectares have been protected with soil bund and almost all the bunds have been planted with MPTs and grasses to stabilize the structures and to intensify the outfield. The main MPTs and grasses planted were tree Lucerne, elephant grass, vetiver grass and phalaris. The performance of tree Lucerne and elephant grass was better than the others grasses.

Challenges Property right and soil and water conservation Despite their complexity and diversity, all watersheds share two keystone resources: water and land. Property rights to land resources generally vary across the different types of land that make up watersheds. Insecure property rights to cropland can reduce incentives to invest in land improvements and conservation structures such as terraces or trees that could reduce soil erosion and sediment flows. Often, however, water rights are more dynamic, flexible, and contested than land rights. Bundle of rights on cultivated land in the outfield, besides any other factors, influenced farmers’ long term investment. For example, none of the shared in plots have received animal manure. This is because of the fact that on the one hand, farmers perceived the manure will stay in the soil for about three years; on the other hand, the length of sharing land is not greater than one year.


33

Collective actions for SWC Collective action as an institution is commonly overlooked or, when recognized, frequently misunderstood. Most basically, this collective action can be defined as voluntary action taken by a group to achieve common interests (Marshall 1998). The action can take place through an organization such as a producer cooperative or members can participate in such action directly. Effective soil and water conservation requires various stakeholders to coordinate their use of and investments in these resources. Robust collective management depends on the level of existing community organization and social capital. Strong norms and social relations enable people to work together to achieve their goals. The size and social structure of communities sharing the watershed influence their ability to stimulate and sustain collective action. Watersheds know no boundaries. Collective action will be most easily achieved among people of the same ethnic, cultural, political and/or administrative group. Rarely, if ever, are ethnic, cultural or administrative boundaries consistent with hydrologic boundaries. Achieving coordination often requires reconciling socially defined boundaries like villages with physically defined boundaries like catchments. Although there are technical reasons to use catchments as natural units when applying a watershed approach to natural resource management, organizing collective action for SWC along strict hydrological boundaries was difficult. Hydrological boundaries and features of watersheds or sub-watersheds rarely correspond to the village, the district, or other social or administrative unit. For example Galessa watershed is found in two peasant associations and contains fully and partially five villages. Some of the households in a village were dissected by the hydrological boundary. Collective action through the existing administrative institutions, for instance, Gere-Missoma, Peasant Associations and local institutions such as Idir, equb, and senbete were difficult for watershed based SWC as their boundaries were not reconcile with the hydrological boundary.

Participation in SWC The extensive nature of resources and the interdependency of users within a watershed underscore the need for broad stakeholder participation in developing and implementing watershed management technologies.

34

Zenebe et.al

Finding mechanisms to identify relevant stakeholders-including users and non-users of resources, both inside and outside the watershed and to facilitate exchange of information, mediation of conflicts and negotiation of mutually acceptable land management options is not an easy task Achieving effective participation were challenging because stakeholders often differ greatly in their social, economic, and political power and access. Identifying stakeholders and facilitating their interaction are also challenged by the diversity of stakeholders, interests, mandates, and claims on watershed resources. Although there are several interest groups of farmers in a given watershed, four major categories were found in Galessa watershed. These four categories of farmers have divergent interest in different issues of the watershed because they do have unequal benefits of collective action in the watershed. This case study showed how these different categories of farmers behaved in watershed management activities. Type I: Farmers whose residential house and farmland are entirely inside the watershed and covered 11.7 % of the watershed residences. These were farmers who were willing and fully participating in watershed activities and meetings. This is because they could benefit from every activity implemented in the watershed. Type II: Farmers whose residential house was inside the watershed and their farmland was partially inside and partially outside the watershed. This group covered 57.9% of the watershed residences. Since these farmers have farmlands partially inside the watershed, they were partial beneficiaries of the some watershed activities implemented in farmlands in the watershed. The level of participation of type I farmers were better than type II farmers. They were also more interested in technologies that can be adapted around homestead at individual household levels. Type III: Farmers whose residential house is inside the watershed and without farmland. These types of farmers covered 1.2%, were mostly landless and these were of two types: The first category of farmers are those completely engaged in off-farm activities while the second category of farmers are those partially off-farm and those partially farming (rent-in/ shared-in). The categories of these farmers had no any interest in almost all of the watershed activities except spring management as their livelihood depends on completely on off-farm activities. The second category was also interested in short-term benefits


35

from improved variety and resistant in long-term investment like soil and water conservation activities. Type IV: Farmers whose residential house is outside the watershed and their farmland was entirely inside the watershed. This group covered 29.2 % of the total household in the watershed. It was challenging for watershed facilitators to participate those farmers whose residential house was outside the watershed and their farmland was entirely inside the watershed in different watershed activities. This was because some of these farmers were at distant from the watershed and/or either they shared out or rented out their farmlands and living in adjacent towns

Spatial inter‐linkages and externalities Spatial inter-linkages related to the flow of water and nutrients are inherent in watersheds. Soil erosion in the upstream may harm downstream uses of land and water, while conservation measures in the upstream may benefit downstream use. Coordination or collective action is often required, which may be difficult because benefits and costs are distributed unevenly. This is not only complicate implementation, but also raises difficulties for evaluation. In particular, since the extent of such complexity will vary by case, an activity that works in one location may not work well in another. Subtleties in underlying differences can make it difficult for researchers to understand causal relationships governing success. The experience at Galessa watershed showed that farmers having flat to gentle lands were reluctant to construct or collaborate for soil bunds construction. These plots are either the sources (if in the upstream) or the sinks (if in the downstream) of run-off. A farmer in Ameya village refused to construct soil bund and the plot stayed a source of high run-off for the downstream plots. Due to the lack of natural waterways to drain excess water collected from several soil bunds, there was a need to have artificial common waterways. However, getting common waterways was one of the main challenges in soil and water conservation in the watershed. This is because farmers should lose part of their arable land. Negotiation support and persuasions were used to convince farmers to secure common waterways in appropriate areas. This approach was successful in all of the villages in the watershed.

Long gestation and difficulty in perceiving benefits Some watershed activities may have short-term effects, but majority of watershed activities have long-term impacts, some of which may be

36

Zenebe et.al

difficult to evaluate or even perceive. Soil erosion, for example, is a slow process in many places and the benefits of arresting it may not be recognized easily. Recharging groundwater, stabilizing hillsides through vegetative cover, and increasing soil moisture and organic matter all take time. As a result, it was difficult to know the conditions that would have prevailed in the absence of interventions. Perceiving benefits is particularly difficult where interventions do not raise productivity but merely prevent gradual degradation. Even if impacts are perceptible, it is difficult to assess the economic value of the numerous potential activity benefits that do not enter the market. These include such environmental and natural resource improvements as greater abundance and wider diversity of natural flora and fauna, higher groundwater levels, and lower risk of landslides and flooding.

Free grazing Conflicts resulting from free grazing have spatial dimensions related to the distribution of grazing lands and the administrative units from which grazing households emanate. In Galessa watershed, livestock are restricted on the uncultivated mainly fallow and natural pasture areas during cropping season, whereas during dry season grazing is open access as there is no crop in the outfield. Different approaches have been tried to intensify the Galessa watershed. The first approach was tried in 2005/2006. In this approach discussions and series of meetings were held to intensify the outfields through construction of soil bunds and planting MPTs. The whole community in the watershed was convinced and mobilized to construct conservation structures and planting MPTs and they were also agreed on the protection of MPTs from grazing during the dry season. During 2005/2006 cropping season, farmers of each village constructed soil bunds and planted MPTs on the structures. However, farmers were not able to stop free movement of cattle and almost all MPTs were devastated by free grazing. Farmers raised different reasons for the failure of the approach. Some of these reasons were: presence of different interest groups. For example, those with large number of livestock were not supporting outfield intensification; it was difficult to control livestock from adjacent areas entering to the watershed; and large livestock population coupled with lack of animal feed in the watershed made it difficult to control free grazing with in short period of time.


37

The second approach was tried in 2006/2007. In this case, only interested groups having adjacent plots were organized and planted multipurpose trees on soil bunds. Two groups with seven member each were organized and agreed to serve as guard turn by turn, assuming once per week to control free grazing during the dry period in the selected small catchments in two villages were organized and agreed to hire a guard through contribution of money to control free grazing during the dry period. Still this approach has not been working due to the fact that the amount of money that will be paid for the guard was beyond the expectation of farmers and farmers cannot contribute such amount of money. This approach was failed due to loss of commitment and ambitious planning. The third approach planned for 2007/2008 was introducing high value crop like apple in the watershed as an incentive to control free grazing. The logic here was when high value tree crops like apple is planted in the outfield, farmers restrict their livestock from the outfield. However, farmers were not able to plant apple seedlings in the outfield because of fear of theft problem. Outfield intensification in Ethiopia with the existing free grazing system is extremely complex issue. So, it requires gradual change through diversifying income generating enterprises, improved livestock and forage technologies which can substitute the economic return of farmers from the current livestock management system. Moreover, this should be supported by strong policy.

High cost of facilitation Cost of facilitation was high as compared to the conventional approach. This is because it requires frequent follow-up and supervision of activities such as empirical researches, action research, and community action processes; and engagement of multidisciplinary team. Although watershed is expensive, it is a fraction of future benefits achieved by preventing environmental degradation and greatly reducing the need for costly remediation.

Challenge in managing multidisciplinary team The different team members in Galessa watershed management were much more diverse and included soil scientist, soil and water

38

Zenebe et.al

conservationist, hydrologist, economist, sociologist, agro-forester, crop breeders, forage agronomist, dairy specialist and fruit expert. Commitment to participatory watershed management research approaches may demand significant changes in the way we think about both the theory and practice of conventional research at plot level. This has been challenged by the different team members in different times. Some of the major factors that hindered the functionality of interdisciplinary team were: lack of common understanding on the approaches and how to work together, workload, turnover of coordinators and team members.

Conclusions and Recommendations •

•

•

•

•

The problem of soil erosion is complex phenomena and the solution is beyond research and technical innovations. Thus there is a need to integrate different innovations especially, policy, socio-economic and technological interventions; Generating basic information at watershed level is very important. This is because there is lack of enough basic information in the highlands which are very important to design different hydrological and SWC structures; There has been poor perception among different researchers and experts that SWC technologies developed some where else regardless of farming system, hydrology, physiography, pedography, socio economic variations, can be effective everywhere. But the experience in Galessa watershed showed that generating, testing, and evaluating different technologies which will be effective as per the agroecologies, farming system and other variations in the country is crucial; Effective SWC at watershed level requires high level of collective action, high security of property rights, and long time to get benefits. Long gestation of benefits of SWC activities have influenced the adoption of the structures and farmers’ willingness to invest in the outfield. There is an urgent need to create awareness at different levels so as to invest for the future generation; and Hydrological boundary delineation was not effective for watershed based soil and water conservation as it dissects the administrative/institutional boundaries. Hybrid (flexible) watershed delineation is, therefore, crucial to mobilize the community with the existing institutions. However, the implementation of conservation activities should follow the watershed logic, i.e., from ridge to valley.


39

References Blaikie P.1985. Political Economy of Soil Erosion in Developing Countries. Longman Development Studies, New York Hurni H.1990. Degradation and conservation of soil resources in the Ethiopian highlands. Mountain and Research Development 8 (2-3): 123-130. Hurni H.1993. Land degradation, famine, and land resource scenarios in Ethiopia. In: Pimentel D. (ed.) World soil erosion and conservation. Cambridge Univ. Press. Marshall G. 1998. A dictionary of sociology. New York: Oxford University Press. Sutcliffe JP. 1993. Economic assessment of land degradation in the Ethiopian highlands: A case study. National Conservation Strategy Secretariat, Ministry of Planning and Economic development, Addis Ababa. USAID. 2000. Amhara National Regional State, food security research assessment report. Available at: http://crsps.org/amhara/amhara_rpt.PDF (accessed date 16/8/2007) Zenebe A. 2005. The Impacts of Land Tenure Systems on Soil and Water Conservation Practices in Beressa Watershed, Ethiopia. MSc thesis. Wageningen University and Research Center, The Netherlands. 107 pp.

Participatory Tree Nursery Management and Tree Planting Berhane Kidane1, Mehari Alebachew2, Kindu Mekonnen2 Kassahun Bekele2, and Laura A. German3 1 Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research Forestry Research Center, P.O. Box 2003, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 2 Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research Holetta Research Center, P.O. Box 2003, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 3 Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia

Introduction Human and livestock population, coupled with many other physical, socioeconomic and political factors causes severe degradation of natural resources. Forests are among the natural resources which decline at alarming rate in the highlands of Ethiopia. Forest clearing is continuing both in the high forests and on-farm remnant trees. Hence, this resulted in the loss of crop productivity, shortage of forest products and environmental degradation. The annual loss of high forest areas of the country is estimated to be 150,000 to 200,000 ha. If the forest clearing continues at present trend, the remaining forests would be devoid of vegetation within a short period of time (MNRDEP, 1994). It was believed that about 35 % of the land area of the country was covered with high forests in the 1900s. The coverage was reduced to 16 %, 3.6 %, 2.7 %, and less than 2.3 % by the early 1950s, 1980s, 1989 and 1994, respectively (GPDRE, 1990; MNRDEP, 1994). The causes of the declining of forests are diverse. However, the low standards of living of the people coupled with the lack of alternative options to alleviate poverty are some of the factors responsible for aggravating the problem. Planting trees in and around farmlands, villages, homesteads, along roads and waterways can be potential niches to integrate different species and address the increasing demand for forest resources. Along with planting of trees, proper protection, management and utilization are very crucial. Integration of trees in the farming system can be achieved if land, labor and capital are available; and the priorities of the farmers respected. Thus, farmers’ participation in the problem identification,

42

Berhane et.al

planning and implementation stages of the research can have significant impact on the promotion of tree planting activities. As previous experiences from other African countries indicate, most farmers had little input to decide on their tree species preference. It was rather the scientists or extension workers used to decide for them. In actual circumstances, successful diffusion and adoption of improved tree based technologies depend not only on the technical performance of the technologies but also on farmers’ participation during the different stages of technology generation. Participatory on-farm testing of tree and shrub species is useful for evaluating the performance of the species under a wider range of biophysical (soil, flora, and fauna) and socioeconomic conditions (Kindu et al., 2008). It also provides important diagnostic information about farmers’ problem, and helping to get farmers’ assessment of a practice, their ideas on how it may be modified and for observing their innovations. Moreover, it encourages farmers and researchers to work together and share experiences. Participatory nursery management and planting of trees was carried out at Galessa watershed from 2004 to 2007 to increase farmers’ participation in seedling rising and promoting planting of trees at the watershed and thereby document, processes, lessons and constraints.

Methodologies The study site The study was conducted at Galessa watershed, Dendi district, West Shewa Zone of the Oromiya Region from 2004 to 2007. The watershed is located in the central highlands of Ethiopia with an altitude range of 2820-3100 meter above sea level. The rainfall pattern is bimodal. The main rainy season is from June to September with a mean annual rainfall of >1000 mm. Barley is the most dominant crop followed by potato and enset (Ensete ventricosum). Cattle, sheep and horses are dominant livestock in the study area. The dominant soil of the watershed is Haplic Luvisols.

Tree nursery management and tree planting

43

Nursery management The initial watershed survey in 2004 showed that the loss of indigenous tree species and the shortage of wood resources as two of the 18 prioritized problems of the watershed. Discussion forum was organized with watershed farmers to find out solutions for the aforementioned tree related problems. During the discussion forum farmers suggested the establishment of their own community nurseries at the two villages. Those farmers who were interested in seedling rising were organized by village. Farmers and researchers made a transect walk in the watershed and assessed sites that are suitable to tree nursery establishment and selected appropriate nursery sites. Two community-based tree nurseries were established at two villages. The first nursery site was at Tiro (Legatebo nursery site) and the second site was at Ameya village. Indigenous and exotic tree species were selected based on farmers’ interest and raised in the two nurseries. Trainings were given to the farmers on the methods of raising seedlings (nursery layout, site preparation, potting, seeding, transplanting and pricking out) and tree nursery management practices. Moreover, nursery tools and tree seeds were provided to farmers by African Highlands Initiative (AHI) project. Each year (from 2004 to 2007), a discussion forum was organized with farmers to evaluate and document major challenges and constraints in participatory nursery management. During the process of participatory nursery management farmers set local nursery bylaws that encourage equal contribution of costs and benefits among the participating farmers.

Tree planting Different meetings were held before the distribution of seedlings to avoid improper site selection, land preparation and planting. Farmers were informed to prepare and make ready planting sites prior to planting. Practical training days were organized and conducted at the time of planting. Regular meetings and group discussion forums were handled every time with farmers. Field visits were conducted in order to enable farmers share experiences from each other. In addition to the nursery management activities, tree planting around homesteads, abandoned land and valley bottoms were conducted to evaluate the performance of different tree species. Tree species such as Dombeya torrida, Rhamnus prinoides, Acacia decurrens, Hagenia abyssinica, Eucalyptus globulus

44

Berhane et.al

and Chamaecytisus palmensis were planted with a 1.5 m intra and 2 m inter row spacing in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. Survival counts of the species were done every three and six months to calculate their survival percentage. Graduated stick and caliper were used to measure height and root collar diameter of the tree and shrub species, respectively.

Results and Discussion Farmers’ experiences and reflections Three nursery groups worked at Tiro village and one nursery group worked at Ameya village. Each nursery group was composed of five committee members, which includes a chairman, secretary, cashier, supervisor and a member. The committee had an overall responsibility of organizing meetings, follow-up the day-to-day activities of the nursery and identifying the level of participation of the farmers. Bylaws on nursery management has been developed, commented and approved by the community group in the watershed. The farmers put restrictions on members who would not perform the expected responsibilities. A community member who doesn’t properly manage seedlings during his or her turn and doesn’t participate meetings organized by researchers or representative group leaders shall be punished. Similarly group leaders who don’t perform his responsibility such as leading and supervising the members shall be punished. It is included in the bylaw that the final sharing of the seedlings will be only for group members in the watershed. Most of the seedlings raised in the year 2004/2005 died at both nurseries. A discussion forum was held by researchers and farmers before the onset of 2005/2006 seedling raising activities in order to investigate the possible causes of the poor survival of the seedlings at the two nurseries. The objectives of the participatory discussion were: to identify the previous year (2004/2005) tree nursery problems, propose possible solutions for the specified problems and prepare a nursery activity plan. During the group discussion, farmers identified the following major problems that are associated with the management of community nursery:


45

Improper fencing of the nursery site: The nursery site was not properly fenced. This was because of wider spacing of the fencing poles while fencing the nursery site, use of poor quality nails and poor construction of the nursery gate. As a result, browsing animals damaged the seedlings. Poor implementation of nursery activities and differences in level of participation: Farmers didn’t weed and water the seedlings regularly. Moreover, all farmers didn’t show equal participation in the process and this influenced those actively participating farmers. The reluctance of some farmers and lack of continuous follow up of the nursery activities by the management committees were the major reasons for the implementation of the plans. Difficulties to implement local nursery bylaws: At the beginning of participatory nursery management there was no law set by the farmers. In the mean time, farmers found that most farmers didn’t actively participate in the nursery activity. Then, farmers decided and set local bylaws so as to enable all farmers to participate equally. However, the local law was not implemented as expected. This was because of the social relationships among the different social groups that hindered the implementation of punishments agreed in the bylaw. The watershed farmers arrived at the following possible interventions so as to minimize the aforementioned problems: • • •

•

Each members of the nursery group agreed to bring poles and involve during the maintenance of the fence. Farmers requested assistance from community facilitator to purchase nursery construction materials such as U-shape nail and barbed wire. Pot filling with sand, manure and local soil should be made prior to sowing date. The committee of each village should arrange timetable and share responsibilities to each member, and carry out continuous supervision. The watershed committee should implement bylaws.

Researchers and farmers held a group discussion forum in October 2006. The objectives of the participatory discussion were to assess the year 2005/2006 tree nursery management problems and propose possible solutions accordingly. Major issues raised by the watershed farmers

46

Berhane et.al

include: inefficiency to raise seedlings according to the proposed calendar, lack of implementing the bylaws and refusal of the nursery site landowner to provide land for nursery establishment.


47

Performances of trees and shrubs Survival of the species The survival percentages of trees planted around the homestead were better than that of the trees planted on abandoned land and in valley bottoms (Table 1). A 100% survival rate was recorded for A. decurrens and 97.8 % for E. globulus around the homesteads. Chamaecytisus palmensis showed the lowest survival rate as compared to the other species. On the other hand, tree planted at the valley bottoms showed poor survival percentage as compared to the trees planted around the homesteads and on abandoned land. Acacia decurrens followed by R. prinoides resulted in the highest survival rate on valley bottoms. Dombeya torrida followed by C. palmensis showed the lowest survival rate. The low survival rate of the trees on valley bottoms as compared to the other niches might be due to the frequent occurrence of frost hazard of the former than the later. Table 1. The survival rate (%) of different trees and shrubs at different niches of the Galessa watershed Homestead 100 75.6

Abandoned land 86.1 58.3

Valley bottom 66 81

Dombeya torrida

91.1

28.6

39.1

Eucalyptus globulus

97.8

-

85.2

Hagenia abyssinica

93.3

73

-

Rhamnus prinoides

86.7

83.3

54

Juniperus procera

-

-

60

Tree species planted Acacia decurrens Chamaecytisus palmensis

Olea africana Mean

-

-

61

90.75

65.86

65.05

Growth of trees Height and root collar diameter of trees planted on abandoned land was better than trees planted in valley bottoms. Chamaecytisus palmensis provided the highest mean height growth (2.28 m) around the homestead as compared to the abandoned land and valley bottoms. On the abandoned land, the highest height growth was recorded for A. decurrens followed by E. globulus. On the other hand, the lowest height growth was recorded for R. prinoides followed by H. abyssinica (Table 2). Like that of the height growth, the root collar diameter varied among the tree

Berhane et.al

48

species. The highest root collar diameter was recorded for C. palmensis followed by D. torrida (Table 3). Rhamnus prinoides provided the lowest root collar diameter in all of the three tree growing niches. Better soil fertility and less frequent frosts can be some of the factors that contributed to better growth of the tree species around the homestead. Table 2. Height growth (m) of trees planted at the three niches of the Galessa watershed (After two years of establishment)

*

Tree species planted

Homestead

Abandoned land

Valley bottom

Acacia decurrens

1.95±(1.11)*

0.82±(0.33)

0.48 ±(0.25)

Chamaecytisus palmensis

2.28±(1.10)

0.48±(0.19)

0.49±(0.25)

Dombeya torrida

1.42±(0.42)

0.30±(0.17)

-

Eucalyptus globulus

2.0±(0.54)

0.54±(0.28)

-

Hagenia abyssinica

0.89±(0.41)

0.23±(0.14)

0.17±(0.08)

Rhamnus prinoides

0.82±(0.43)

0.21±(0.11)

0.21±(0.07)

Figures in the parenthesis are standard deviations

Table 3. Root collar diameter (cm) of trees planted at the three niches of the Galessa watershed after two years of establishment.

*

Tree species planted Acacia decurrens

Homestead 1.34±(0.65)

Abandoned land 1.37±(0.39)

Valley bottom 0.88±(0.23)


2.32±(1.80)

0.70±(0.23)

0.89±(0.26)

Dombeya torrida

2.28±(0.78)

0.81±(0.27)

-

Eucalyptus globulus

1.74±(0.45)

0.70±(0.40)

-

Hagenia abyssinica

2.05±(0.83)

0.86±(0.35)

0.81±(0.24)

Rhamnus prinoides

1.20±(0.68)

0.56±(0.23)

0.58±(0.11)

Figures in the parenthesis are standard deviations

Major Constraints Lack of fencing Some of the trees planted near the homesteads as live fence and others were planted on open fields. Some farmers protected the seedlings around the homesteads through fencing. But, most farmers did not fence the seedlings. Due to this problem, most of the seedlings were trampled, grazed and browsed by animals.


49

Narrow spacing Most of the framers’ planted seedlings too closely. Some farmers planted with a spacing of less than 10 cm. As a result, the survival and growth performance of seedlings affected due to competition for water and nutrient resources.

Unwise planting It was found that some farmers planted tree seedlings without removing the polyethylene bags. Moreover, most farmers didn’t conduct proper planting of the seedlings. They planted the seedlings in a slant position rather than vertical (straight upward) position.

Poor site selection Some farmers planted seedlings underneath of the live fence.

Dispersed planting Some farmers planted the seedlings in scattered areas where they have land. This has created inconveniencies for timely weeding, fencing and mulching of the seedlings.

Poor management Most farmers did not weed, hoe and manure the seedlings. The seedlings in some farmers’ fields totally invaded by weed.

Animal browsing and trampling Animals graze and browse during the dry season freely. This has resulted in poor survival of the trees.

Conclusion and Recommendations Participatory nursery management can be more effective so long as incentive mechanisms designed to facilitators within the community. Participatory community nursery management enabled farmers to raise tree and shrub seedlings in their vicinity. It also benefited those farmers who didn’t have land near the watering points.

50

Berhane et.al

Participatory nursery management enabled farmers to learn from each other on how to raise and manage tree seedling in the nursery. Negotiations among farmers were required to reduce the impact of free grazing on trees planted in the outfields. Chamaecytisus palmensis showed good performance and survival percentage both on abandoned land and valley bottom sites. Therefore, further work should be done to promote the species to reclaim degraded sites at the watershed.

References Ethiopian Forestry Action Program. 1994. The challenge for Development Volume II, Ministry of Natural Resources Development and Environmental Protection. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Government of the Peoples Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. 1990. National conservation strategy. Phase I report. Ministry of Natural Resources Development and Environmental Protection, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Kindu M, G Glatzel, Berhane K, Mehari A, Kassahun B and Mesfin T. 2008. Processes, lessons and challenges from participatory tree species selection, planting and management research in the highland Vertisol areas of central Ethiopia. Kindu M, G Glatzel, Tadesse Y and Yoseph A. 2006. Tree species screened on Nitisols of central Ethiopia: Biomass production, nutrient contents and effect on soil nitrogen. Journal of Tropical Forest Sciences, 18(3): 173-180.

Availability and Consumption of Woody and Non‐woody Fuel Biomass at Galessa Berhane Kidane1, Mehari Alebachew2, Laura A. German3 and Kassahun Bekele2 1 Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural research Forestry Research Center, P.O. Box 2003, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 2 Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural research Holetta Research Center, P.O. Box 2003, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 3 Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia

Introduction At Galessa watershed, population pressure has resulted in increasing shortage of farmlands, and this has resulted indiscriminate cutting of trees. Due to this, farmers mentioned loss of trees and shrubs and shortage of fuel wood in the landscape as one of their priority problems. Over population growth and the declined economic situation in the area have also led to rapid forest destruction of the nearby Chilmo forest. The shortage of fuel wood has already forced farmers at Gallessa to use cow dung as a source of fuel. African Highlands Initiative (AHI) in collaboration with Holetta Agricultural Research Center is working in an integrated watershed management approach to overcome the wood, food and feed related problems. The paper summarizes the research findings of major fuel source, amount used at household level, wood resource availability, the wood balance and possible interventions.

Methodology Informal group and individual discussions were held with farmers in the watershed on issues related to fuel wood shortage and associated problems. In addition, issues about land holding and land allocations by individual farmers for different production purposes were thoroughly discussed. Farmers were briefed about the objectives of the assessment survey. The list of the watershed farmers on village bases was obtained

52

Berhane et.al

from the watershed committee. Watershed farmers were classified based on their wealth category as rich, medium, poor, and very poor. The fuel wood consumption assessment formal survey was conducted for one year from April 2006 to April 2007 on 43 households. The assessment format contained the name of the farmer, name of the village where farmers reside, sex, age, family size and wealth category of the household. Survey on land holding and land-use type was carried out in the same period on 36 households. The amount of fuel wood and cow dung used in each household was documented. Measurements of dried fuel wood and cow dung consumption of each household were done by mass balance every two to three days of the year. The land of 36 farmers were measured and recorded for each land use types. The forest and woodlot area and the number of trees planted in each household were enumerated and recorded. Moreover, the total wood production in each household was estimated through direct measurements of tree height and diameter at breast height (DBH).

Results and Discussion Landholding and land use The land holding and land-use types at Galessa watershed varied from farmer to farmer. The major land-use types recorded in the watershed are cropland (outfield and home garden), forest land (homestead and woodlot) and grazing land. Among the 36 surveyed farmers, the highest land holding was 6.15 ha. The lowest landholding ranged from landless farmers to farmers who have 0.12 ha. More than 50% of the surveyed farmers have ≥ 2 ha. Similarly, more than 25% of the surveyed farmers have ≥ 3 ha. Therefore, the land holding of the farmers at Galessa watershed is above the land holding of many highland areas of the country. Cropland: Farmers of the study area have cropland holding both in the outfield and home garden. The highest and lowest land holding of the farmers in the outfield was 5.58 and 0.21 ha hh-1, respectively. Likewise, the highest landholding at the home garden was 1.38 and 0.02 ha hh-1, respectively.

Availability and consumption of woody and non-woody fuel biomass

53

Forestland: Farmers in the watershed plant tree to satisfy their fuel wood, construction wood, farm implements, and generate income. They plant trees as woodlots and live fences. Among the 36 surveyed households only 13 planted trees in the form of woodlots. Woodlots comprised of 2.05% of the total watershed area. Eucalyptus globulus were a dominant woodlot species followed by Cupressus lusitanica. The biggest area that was occupied by a woodlot was 0.44 ha hh-1. The lowest woodlot area coverage was 0.01 ha hh-1. Grazing land: Grazing land is another form of land-use type that exists at Galessa watershed. Farmers allocated a certain area of land for grazing. The share of grazing land in the watershed was 6.18% without the inclusion of the fallow period. Among 36 interviewed households only 20 of them had grazing land. The biggest grazing land recorded was 0.88 ha hh-1 whereas the lowest grazing land was 0.02 ha hh-1. Table 1. Landholding of the sampled farmers Area (ha)

Area (%)

58.99 13.36 1.613

74.82 16.95 2.05

Grazing land

4.874

6.18

Total

78.837

100

Land-use type Crop land Outfields Home garden Forest (woodlot)

Table 2. Land holding of the surveyed farmers Percent of farmers who owned land 13.8

Total landholding (ha) 0.1-0.50

27.7

0.5-1.50

16.7

1.50-2.50

19.46

2.50-3.50

8.37

3.50-4.50

11.2

4.50-5.50

2.77

5.50-6.00

Tree planting and wood production Farmers plant trees as woodlot and live fence around homesteads. The dominant exotic trees planted by the farmers were E. globulus and C. lusitanica. Farmers also planted indigenous tree species such as Hagenia

Berhane et.al

54

abyssinica, Buddleja polystachya, Dombeya torrida, Acacia decurrens and Chamaecytisus palmensis (Table 3). Chamaecytisus palmensis and B. polystachys provided the lowest wood production. This may be due to the damage caused by the livestock population at the early stage of the planted trees in the outfield. The number of trees planted varied from household to household. Most households planted E. globulus more than the other species and obtained as high as 33.37 m3. The lowest wood production from the households was 0.07 m3. Table 3. Tree species planted by sampled farmers and their respective wood production No. of trees

Eucalyptus globulus

12233

Wood production (m3) 171.482

Cupressus lusitanica

976

63.15

Hagenia abyssinica

18

3.304

Buddleja polystachya

21

0.949

Dombeya torrida

6

1.60

Acacia decurrens

92

7.201


60

0.43

13406

248.11

Planted species

Total

Fuel wood and dung utilization Fuel wood is the major source of energy at Galessa watershed. Farmers in the watershed obtain their fuel wood mainly from the trees planted around the homesteads as live fence and/or woodlots. Some households collect fuel wood from Chilmo forest. The annual total fuel wood and cow dung consumption of the households at the watershed was found to be 189.07 m3 and 13178.30 kg, respectively. The fuel wood and dung demand of the households at the watershed varied depending on seasons of the year, family size, and wealth category. Table 4.

Fuel wood (m3) and cow dung (kg) consumption pattern at the watershed Categories

Total fuel wood

(m3 yr-1)

Mean fuel wood used (m3 hh-1) Total dung (kg

yr-1)

Mean dung used (kg hh-1)

Seasons June-Aug

Sep-Nov

Dec-Feb

Mar-May

42.99

58.98

54.38

32.72

1.00

1.38

1.26

0.76

4188.80

1876.6

2145.9

4967.00

97.41

43.63

49.91

115.52

Availability and consumption of woody and non-woody fuel biomass

55

The mean annual fuel wood consumption of the households was higher from August to November. The household mean annual fuel wood consumption was 0.463, 0.461, 0.456 and 0.454 m3 hh-1 in the months of August, September, October, and November, respectively (Table 5). On the other hand, the lowest mean fuel wood consumption observed in the months of May, April, July and June. The very cold weather condition at the watershed is the reason for the high fuel wood consumption from August to November. Table 5. Fuel wood and dung consumption of the households on monthly basis

Months June July August September October November December January February March April May Total

Fuel wood Total annual Mean annual consumption consumption (m3) of the hh (m3) 12.06 11.02 19.91 19.83 19.62 19.53 17.71 17.84 18.83 17.77 8.69 6.26 171.07

0.281 0.256 0.463 0.461 0.456 0.454 0.412 0.414 0.438 0.413 0.202 0.146 4.396

Dung Total annual Mean annual consumption consumption (kg) (kg hh-1) 1367.7 1237.2 1583.9 1234.3 600.9 41.4 126 752 1267.9 2619.3 1395.30 952.9 13178.8

31.81 28.77 36.83 28.70 13.97 0.96 2.93 17.49 29.49 60.91 32.45 22.16 306.48

The cow dung demand of the households also varied from month to month. The highest cow dung demand was noticed from March to June. The increased cow dung consumption from March to June was may be due to the availability of the cow dung in the field and favorable condition for the collection and preparation of the cow dung. On the other hand, the lowest cow dung consumption was observed from November to January. The average annual fuel wood demand of each household was directly proportional to its wealth status. Wealth categories of 1, 2, 3 and 4 demanded 4.74, 4.69, 4.51 and 3.72 m3 of fuel wood, respectively (Table 6). Similarly, the average annual cow dung demand of the wealth ranks

56

Berhane et.al

of 2, 1, 3 and 4 was 402.16, 329.33, 256.43 and 256.43 kg, respectively (Table 6).

Availability and consumption of woody and non-woody fuel biomass Table 6.

57

Fuel wood and dung consumption based on wealth rank

Wealth rank

Number of hh

Fuel wood (m3)

Cow dung (kg)

Very rich

9

Average annual fuel wood used hh-1 4.74

Total annual

Average annual dung used hh-1

Total annual dung used

42.66

329.33

3183.50

Rich

11

4.69

51.59

402.16

4642.40

Medium

11

4.51

49.2

256.43

3039.70

Poor

12

3.72

44.77

247.52

3189.30

Besides wealth categories, fuel wood demand of the watershed was directly proportional to family size. The family size with >10, 6-10, 3-5 and 2 required 6.67, 4.53, 4.19 and 2.14 m3 hh-1, respectively (Table 7).. Table 7. Family size

Fuel wood (m3) and dung (kg) consumption based on family size Number of hh

2

1

Fuel wood used hh-1 yr-1 2.14

3-5

16

4.19

68.3

278.72

4961.50

6-10

25

4.53

114.6

336.65

8918.30

>10

1

6.67

6.67

158.30

158.30

Total fuel wood used yr-1 2.14

Cow dung used hh-1 yr-1 144.80

Total dung used 144.80

The impact of dung on soil fertility The farmers at Galessa watershed use cow dung to supplement their fuel wood requirement rather than applying and improving the fertility of the depleted soils. The amount of N, P, and K lost every year at Galessa watershed due to the utilization of cow dung as fuel source was calculated using the present conditions (nutrient concentration, price and rate of application). The farmers forced to buy 16.15 quintals (1615 kg) of DAP yr-1. At the time when the price of DAP was 300 birr Quintal-1, the farmers expend 5000 birr yr-1 (Table 8). This has a significant impact both on the farmers’ economy and the fertility status of the soil.

Berhane et.al

58 Table 8.

Nutrient content and cost estimate from cow dung samples at Galessa watershed Nutrient content

Total used dung kg-1

Nutrients lost kg yr-1

Total N (%)

1.17

13178.8

154.19

Available P (ppm)

1.31

13178.8

172.64

K (meq /100% of soil)

1.03

13178.8

135.74

Organic C (%)

51.87

13178.8

6835.84

Essential nutrients

Demand and supply of fuel wood The current fuel wood demand (579460.75 kg) at the watershed is greater than the supply (552191.50 kg) (Table 9). If intervention options aren’t designed, the natural resources degradation of the watershed will be aggravated. Since the existing fuel sources couldn’t satisfy the demand, the community at the watershed partly fulfilled their requirement by fetching wood from the nearby natural forests. The following wood demand and supply scenarios are expected at the watershed: •

•

•

Based on the current situation, each hh should plant 0.25 ha yr-1 for four continuous years (625 m2 yr-1 of land or 2500 trees during four years). In other words, a total of 36 ha of land in which 9 ha yr-1 need to be planted for four continues years. The spacing can be 1 m x 1 m. The rotation period will be four years. It is expected that the trees attain a height of 5 m and a DBH of 5 cm after four years of establishment. After four years of tree planting interventions the watershed forest coverage can reach to 12%. Through the implementation of the tree planting scheme, the cow dung can be used as sources of organic fertilizer at the watershed; At the moment, there is an attempt to introduce energy saving stove at the watershed. If the trend of introduction of the stoves continues at the current level of initiation, the fuel wood demand will be reduced by 50%. This approach will also help to maintain the forest cover that will be 6% after four years of tree planting interventions; and If the national population growth rate continues with that of 3% and applies to the Galessa watershed, the wood demand after four years will increase by 18.75%. It is essential to raise the forest cover of the watershed to 16% where there are no energy saving stoves and other energy conserving technologies.

Availability and consumption of woody and non-woody fuel biomass Table 9.

59

Fuel wood demand and supply of the watershed Demand and supply

Amount

Fuel wood supply of the sampled farmers

116256.88 Kg

Fuel wood supply of the watershed

552191.68 Kg

Fuel demand (annual utilization) of the sampled farmer

120097.55 Kg

Fuel demand of the watershed

579460.75 Kg

Fuel deficit of the sampled farmers

3840.67 Kg

Fuel wood deficit of the watershed per annum

27269.07 Kg

Fuel wood percentage supply from planted trees

89 %

Dung percentage of the total fuel supply of the watershed

11 %

Conclusion and Recommendations The survey result clearly showed that land allocated for planting trees is very low (2.05%). This doesn’t fulfill the wood requirement of the watershed farmers. Therefore, it is urgently required to increase land allocation for tree planting. An average of 12% land allocation increase by individual household is required so as to attain wood resource requirement. This should be facilitated through well designed implementation strategy and supported by policy and/or local bylaws. It is important to introduce alternative energy sources to reduce further wood resource degradation. The use of cow dung as fuel is not recommended because soil fertility decline is the major problem at the watershed. Therefore, farmers should be advised to use cow dung for soil fertility maintenance.

Indigenous Farm Forestry Trees and Shrubs in Galessa Watershed Kindu Mekonnen1, Gerhard Glatzel2 and Monika Sieghardt2 1

Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Holetta Research Center P.O. Box 2003, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 2 Institute of Forest Ecology, UNI-BOKU, Peter-JordanStrasse 82, A-1190, Vienna, Austria

Introduction Indigenous tree and shrub species that are used for soil fertility improvement at Galessa watershed have been given little research attention. Similarly, the local knowledge hasn’t been supported by scientific investigations. Hence, evaluation studies were conducted at Galessa watershed and the surrounding areas to identify and prioritize indigenous tree and shrub species for soil fertility improvement; assess soil properties under the indigenous trees and shrubs; and determine the nutrient concentration and other quality characteristics of the green biomass of indigenous tree and shrub species.

Materials and Methods The study was carried out from 2004 to 2006 in Dendi (Galessa) and Jeldu weredas of the highlands of central Ethiopia. Niches, structure and composition of the tree and shrub species were investigated through direct observation, as well as group and individual discussion approaches. The tree and shrub species useful for soil fertility improvement were prioritized according to their leaf shedding pattern and decomposition rate by preference ranking method. A total of 150 farmers participated for questionnaire survey. Senecio gigas, Hagenia abyssinica, Dombeya torrida, Buddleja polystachya, and Chamaecytisus palmensis were included in the plant and soil sampling scheme. A transect approach was considered for soil sampling. A sampling depths of 0-15, 15-30, and 30-50 cm and locations of 75 cm (hereafter referred to as closest), 150 cm (hereafter referred to as midst), and 225 cm (hereafter referred to as distant) at both sides from

60

Kindu et.al

the base of each marked tree were considered (Power et al., 2003; Wezel, 2000; Hailu et al., 2000; Kindu and Taye, 1997). Soil samples collected from similar locations were thoroughly mixed to obtain composite samples. Three replicated soil samples were collected under the five species. The soil pH was determined in 1:2.5 soil suspensions in deionised water for active acidity using potentiometric pH-Meter (ÖNORM L1083, 2005). Organic carbon was determined by C/SElement Analyzer LECO S/C 444 using oven-dry samples. Dry combustion at 1400 oC in pure O2 atmosphere and infrared detection of evolved CO2 was applied (ÖNORM L1080, 2005). Total nitrogen was determined by Semi-micro-Kjeldahl procedure using the air-dry samples (ÖNORM L1082, 2005). Available P was determined by Olsen method (Olsen and Sommers, 1982). The total N content of the foliage samples collected from the five species of the tree and shrub species was determined by Kjeldahl digestion using Na2SO4 and CuSO4 as catalysts. Oven dried foliage samples were extracted with a mixture of HNO3 and HClO4. The total N, K, Ca, Mg, Na, S, Mn and Fe content of the extracts was determined by the use of a simultaneous ICP-OES. Lignin was determined by the methods of Van Soest and Robertson (1985). Soluble phenolic compounds were measured by organic solvent extraction and precipitation by trivalent ytterbium (Reed et al., 1985). Yb+++ forms a complex with free phenolic OH-groups and this complex precipitates. This precipitate is determined gravimetrically and the results are reported as mg phenolics g-1 plant material. This method yields quantitative data for total phenolics. A one-way analysis of variance was conducted on soil pH, organic C, total N, exchangeable K, lignin and soluble phenolics using SAS (SAS Institute, 1999). The significance between means was tested using the least significance difference. The following model was considered while running the ANOVA: Yij = μ + αi + βj + eij, where μ is the overall mean, αi the i th treatment (species) effect, βj the j th block (site) effect and eij is the random error associated with Yij.

Indigenous farm forestry trees and shrubs in Galessa

61

Results Useful species for soil fertility and farmers preferences Researchers together with farmers identified more than 16 tree and shrub species around homesteads, farmlands and other niches (Table 1). Soil improving tree species were mainly concentrated around homesteads and in forests. More than 86% of the farmers in the study areas need to plant trees around homesteads for better management and protection purposes. The percentage of farmers who mentioned lack of seedlings, a free grazing livestock system and a lack of awareness as major problems for the planting of indigenous soil fertility improving species is 60 %, 40 % and 25%, respectively. Farmers highly prefer Senecio gigas, H. abyssinica and D. torrida as the most useful tree and shrub species for soil fertility improvement (Table 2). Table 1.

Soil improving tree and shrub species identified in Galessa watershed

Species Buddleja polystachya Dombeya torrida Dracaena steudneri Hagenia abyssinica Juniperus procera. Kalanchoe deficiens Leonotis ocymifolia Myrica salicifolia Phytolacca dodecandra Rubus apetalus Rubus pinnatus Schefflera abyssinica Senecio gigas Trichilia roka Urtica simensis Vernonia auriculifera.

Local names Anfari Danisa Lankuso Heto Gatira Bosokie Bokolu Reji Indode Gora Gura Luke Osolie Anona Dobi Chochinga

Family names Loganiaceae Sterculiaceae Agavaceae Rosaceae Cupressaceae Crassulaceae Lamiaceae Myricaceae Phytolaccaceae Rosaceae Rosaceae Araliaceae Asteraceae Meliaceae Urticaceae Asteraceae

Foliage nutrient content and other qualities The macronutrients content in the foliage differed depending on the species. Chamaecytisus palmensis, D. torrid and B. polystachya had a high N content in their foliage as compared to the other tree and shrub species. On the other hand, the content of N in the foliage of H. abyssinica was comparatively lower than the N content in other tree and shrub species (Table 3). Senecio gigas showed a higher P, K and S content in its foliage. The high content of P, K and S in S. gigas may be

Kindu et.al

62

traced back to the scavenging of these nutrients in a large soil volume and their accumulation in the aboveground organs. According to Garrity and Mercado (1994), members of the Asteraceae family, to which S. gigas belongs, are effective nutrient scavengers. Table 2. Tree and shrub species ranked for soil fertility improvement at Galessa watershed Soil improving species

No. of respondents a

Score

Senecio gigas Hagenia abyssinica Dombeya torrida Vernonia auriculifera Buddleja polystachya Myrica salicifolia Leonotis africana Kalanchoe deficiens Dracaena steudneri Juniperus procera Maytenus senegalensis

142 147 133 122 99 100 60 9 5 3 3

743 734 512 357 272 205 106 39 16 10 8

Note: Sample size was 150 households. Each household scored six preferred tree species for soil fertility improvement. a Number of respondents who selected the species in the top 6. If a farmer selected a species first, it received a value of 6; if second, a value of 5; if third, a value of 4; if fourth, a value of 3; if fifth, Score is sums of individual farmer value given to the respective species.

The content of lignin and soluble phenolics in the foliage differed from species to species. The foliage lignin content was high in B. polystachya (173 mg g-1) and relatively low in H. abyssinica (53 mg g-1) (Table 4). Generally, the foliage lignin contents of most of our tree and shrub species were below the critical level of 150 mg g-1 dry matter. Lignin content above 150 mg g-1 impairs the decomposition of tree foliages, since lignin protects the cellulose in the cell wall from microbial attack (Chesson, 1997, Palm and Rowland, 1997). Table 3.

Lignin and soluble phenolics composition of the foliage and flower bud of the tree and shrub species Foliage

B. polystachya

C. palmensis

D. torrida

H. abyssinica

Lignin 173a 124ba 100bc 53c Soluble phenolics 82b 10c 54b 169a Flower bud Lignin 161b 98dc 199a 73d Soluble phenolics 14c 9c 15c 234a Lignin and soluble phenolics are in mg g-1 dry matter. SEM - Standard error of the means (n = 15). Means with different letters within a row are significantly different (p 30 to 40 mg g-1 results in the immobilization of N (Palm, 1995). Table 4.

Macronutrient composition of foliage, flower bud and stem in five tree and shrub species.

Foliage

B. polystachya

C. palmensis

D. torrida

H. abyssinica

S. gigas

SEM

C N P K Ca Mg S

473b

484a

456c

459c

439d

36.66a 4.71a 21.55c 10.93b 2.07b 3.46b

36.50a 2.50b 14.93d 9.30b 1.97b 2.55c

37.47a 3.76a 27.00b 22.97a 2.81a 3.62ba

30.07b 3.71ba 21.22c 9.69b 2.38ba 2.03d

34.20ba 4.75a 55.50a 11.94b 2.57ba 4.01a

4.24 0.94 0.27 3.83 1.42 0.11 0.20

Organic C, N, P, K, Ca, Mg and S are in mg g-1dry matter. SEM - Standard error of the means (n = 15). Means with different letters within a row are significantly different (p S. gigas > C. palmensis > D. torrida > B. polystachya (Figure 1). The contents of exchangeable K varied significantly at the three horizontal positions. The soil under H. abyssinica and S. gigas had a high content of soil K in all three horizontal positions (Table 6). Table 5.

Soil pH and organic C at the 0-15 cm depth and different positions from the base of the five tree and shrub species Species

Buddleja polystachya Chamaecytisus palmensis Dombeya torrida Hagenia abyssinica Senecio gigas SEM

pH (H2O) 75 cm 150 cm 6.07b 5.90c b 6.01 5.97bc 6.14ba 5.92bc 6.80a 6.70a ba 6.59 6.47ba 0.121 0.111

225 cm 5.86b 6.09b 5.85b 6.95a 6.47ba 0.139

Organic C (mg g-1) 75 cm 150 cm 225 cm 51.31b 40.33b 39.73b ba ba 61.37 58.63 56.36ba 63.50ba 59.86ba 57.59a 74.56a 64.86a 60.76a ba ba 58.93 55.11 53.00ba 3.302 3.372 2.899

Means with different letters within a column at similar position are significantly different (p